The complainant may not disclose the fact which may attract the provision of Section 197(1) , Crpc, but it is always desirable that if a person claims the benefit of section 197(1) , Crpc, then this question must be decided at the earliest opportunity. If course ,the burden to prove that he is entitled to the benefit of section 197(1) , Crpc kues upon the person claiming the benefit.

The position that emerges , therefore that the general provision s contained in section 197 if the Crpc, idms not attracted to the trial if the offence under the Provision of corruption Act, before Special Judge. The sanction required is the sanction contemplated under section 6 of the Act. Since petitioner had ceased to be Minister and for that reason had caused to be a public servant by the time cognizance of the offence was taken by the court, sanction under Section 6 is not required since that section insists for a sanction only in the case of a person who is employed with affairs of a state.

When charge under the Prevention of Corrupt Act is made against a public servant, Section 19 of the said Act will automatically come in to play. An attempt has been made to distinguish official duty and the Act done would futile because the very basis of the offender under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is obtaining illegal gratification etc. Unless the accused is a public servant,there can not be an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and therefore, sanction under section 19 if the Act is a must.