Bapna, J.—This is an appeal by Gainda, son of Raghuvir Kachhi of Nagla-Bhensa, Police Station Rupdas, who has been convicted under sec. 165- A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, Bharat-pur, by judgment dated 15th June, 1955, The sum of Rs, 100/-, which was sought to be offered as bribe, was directed forfeit to the Government. 2. The case for the prosecution is that mutation of one bigha and twelve biswas of land in khasra No. 1543 in village Bhensa was made in favour of Girraj Nai by Shri Kaluram Naib Tehsildar, Rupbas, by order dated 31st October, 1954 This order was by consent of Gainda, in whose name that land previously stood Ganinda, however, changed his mind, and approached Shri Kaluram to reverse the entry, and on 4th November, 1954, offered to pay illegal gratification to Shri Kaluram Shri Kaluram refused to be tempted, but Gainda, accompanied by Deoji, went to his house on the next day. that is, 5th of November, 1954. The Naib Tehsildar suspected that they had come for the same pur pose of offering him a bribe again, and wrote to the Police Officer to come and take action. He also sent for two respectable persons of the locality Nathilal and Pyarelal. After the arrival of the Sub-Inspector Nathi Singh, Pyaralal and Nathilal, the naib tehsildar entered his baithak. Gainda offered Rs. 100/-, and asked the Tehsildar to reverse the entry. The Naib Tehsildar declined to accept the money. The Sub-Inspector,Nathilal and Pyarelal heard the conversation, and saw the offer being made through the chinks in the door, entered the door, and took possession of the amount of Rs. 100/- consisting of ten notes of Rs, 10/- each. The sub-Inspector informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who submitted the challan of Gainda and his companion Deoji. Deoji was given the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted. Gaindas plea in defence was that Shri Kaluram was of the Mali caste, and when he went to Bhensa, he asked to be given hukka of the Kachhis to which community Gainda belonged. His request was refused, and Shri Kaluram had become angry on that score. Deoji was given the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted. Gaindas plea in defence was that Shri Kaluram was of the Mali caste, and when he went to Bhensa, he asked to be given hukka of the Kachhis to which community Gainda belonged. His request was refused, and Shri Kaluram had become angry on that score. He had called the accused Gainda to his house, and falsely implicated him. The money which he had at the time, and which was recovered, had been brought by him from his village for purchasing seeds. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, 3. It was contended that under the revenue laws the Naib Tehsildar had no power to reverse any entry in the revenue records, and therefore, he had become functus officio in the matter of exercising any power to grant any favour to the accused. Learned counsel relied on Venkatarama Naidu vs. Emperor(l) and Qazi Rahimullah vs. Emperor (2). The Madras case was adversely commented upon by a subsequent decision of the same High Court In re-Varadadesikaachariar(3). The other High Courts have taken a different view, and it has been held that the relevant question is the state of mind of the accused, when he offers a bribe, and it has nothing to do with the question whether the public servant is or is not in a position to do or not to do the act, for the doing or not doing whereof the amount is offered to him. Mahadeo Daunapp Gunaki vs. State(4). This latter view has found approval with their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 5), where it has been observed that— To constitute an offence under S. 161 I.P.C. it is enough if the public servant who receives the money takes it by holding out that he will render assistance to the giver with any other public servant and the giver gives the money under that belief. It may be that the receiver of the money is in fact not in a position to render such assistance and is even aware of it. He may not even have intended to do what he holds himself out as capable of doing. He may accordingly be guilty of cheating.Nonetheless he is guilty of the offence under sec. It may be that the receiver of the money is in fact not in a position to render such assistance and is even aware of it. He may not even have intended to do what he holds himself out as capable of doing. He may accordingly be guilty of cheating.Nonetheless he is guilty of the offence under sec. 161." If, therefore, the acceptance of a bribe by representation that a particular favour will be shown;although the acceptor is not authorised to do the act, will be an offence under sec. 161 I.P.C., the offerer of an illegal gratification to a public servant, who may have no authority to show the particular favour would be guilty of the offence under sec. 165, although the Public Servant may refuse to be tempted. 4. It was next contended that the prosecution witnesses Nathi Singh, Nathilal, Pyarelal Shri Kaluram, and Jawali were interested witnesses, being party to the trap, and therefore, their statements could not be acted upon without corroboration. Reliance was placed on Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh(6). In the case relied upon, the police had supplied the amount of bribe to be offered to the public servant, and a trap was laid in which the public servant stepped in. In the present case no trap was laid, no money was supplied by the police. What happened was that Shri Kaluram wanted action to be taken against the accused, whom he suspected to have come with an intention of offering the bribe, as he had done so on the previous day; but the Naib Tehsildar did not fail in with the wishes of Gainda. There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses which should detract from the value of their evidence. 5. It was next contended that the entry in favour of Girraj Nai (barber) was made with the consent of Gainda , and there was,therefore, no occasion for Gainda to offer and bribe. According to Shri Kaluram, Gainda had changed his mind, and wanted to have the entry reversed because he had been taunted by his kinsmen that the land had passed from the hands of Kachhis to a barber. Why Gainda wanted the entry to be reversed is not material so far as that was the object with which he wanted to approach the Naib Tehsildar. 6. Why Gainda wanted the entry to be reversed is not material so far as that was the object with which he wanted to approach the Naib Tehsildar. 6. It was next contended that the evidence of the witnesses was discrepant, inasmuch as while Nathi Singh P.W. 2, Nathilal P.W. 3, and Pyarelal P.W. 4 had stated having seen the offer of bribe by Gainda from the chinks in door, Shri Kaluram P.W. 7 stated that the door had no leaves. The statement of the Naib-Tehsildar is not quite clean and the witnesses who purported to have seen the incident throw the chinks were not cross-examined as to how they were able to see, if the opening had no door. The room was one which had been visited by Gainda admittedly, and he knew the condition of the doors and shutters, but he did not make any statement on this point, although he appeared as a witness for himself. It may be that Shri Kaluram only meant that the leaves had not been fastened, when he stated that the door had no leaves. Another discrepancy pointed out was that Nathisingh S.I. had mentioned the recovery of the notes from Deoji, while the other witnesses said that Gainda had the notes in his hands, and was offering them to the Naib Tehsildar. Nathi Singhs statement was obviously contrary to the recovery list, in which he had mentioned the recovery of the notes from Gainda, and the discrepancy may be due to lapse of memory or any other reason. But leaving the statement of Nathi Singh apart, the statement of the other witnesses, viz, Shri Kaluram, Nathilal and Pyarelal prove that it was Gainda who was offering the notes, which were subsequently recovered from him. On a careful consideration of the evidence, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the conviction was correct. 7. Learned counsel contended that the sentence was serve, but I do not at all agree with him on this point. The sentence is not serve. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.