Judgment Santhosh, J.- The appellant before this Court has been convicted of an offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to three months’ R. I. by the learned Special Judge, Belgaum, in Special Case No. 1 of 1965. There was also a charge under section 5(1)(a) and (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge acquitted him of this charge. No appeal has been filed by the State against the said acquittal. In this appeal, the appellant questions the correctness and legality of his conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the Municipal School Board, Belgaum. The charge against him was that in his capacity as public servant while holding the post of Head-Clerk-cum-Accountant, he habitually accepted by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as public servant, gratification other than legal remuneration from number of persons as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do official acts. The prosecution examined in all 38 witnesses in support of the charges against the accused. The accused denied his guilt. He did not examine any witness on his behalf. His case was that he had come into clash with a group of teachers headed by one Kadabi and another Barde and they had implicated him falsely in this case. Though the prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of their case that the accused had taken illegal gratification from them, the learned Special Judge did not consider it safe to act on their evidence. The learned Special Judge accepted as proved only two instances wherein the accused had accepted bribes from P.W. 5, Nimalabai and P.W. 7, Naramadabai. Hence, it is sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to see whether the learned Special Judge was right in accepting their evidence and convicting the accused of the offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. P.W. 5, Nirmalabai was working in the year 1960 in School No. 9 at Thalakawadi as Assistant Teacher. This school was under the administration of the Municipal School Board, Belgaum. On 20th June, 1960, she received Exhibit 34, a pseudonymous letter dated 18th June, 1960 in which some dirty and unfounded alligations were made against her. P.W. 5, Nirmalabai was working in the year 1960 in School No. 9 at Thalakawadi as Assistant Teacher. This school was under the administration of the Municipal School Board, Belgaum. On 20th June, 1960, she received Exhibit 34, a pseudonymous letter dated 18th June, 1960 in which some dirty and unfounded alligations were made against her. Thereafter, on 4th August, 1960 another pseudonymous post card dated 3rd August, 1960, Exhibit 35, containing similar unfounded allegations, was received by her. Shortly after the receipt of these letters, the Headmaster of their school, P.W. 3, Ambewadikar, received a communication from the Administrative Officer's Office to make confidential enquiry about the allegations in the said letters. P.W. 3, Ambewadikar called her and questioned her. P.W. 5 felt terribly upset and complained to her husband, P.W. 6 Parashuram Kale. Her husband said that he would go and speak to the accused, who was the Head Clerk in the School Board Office. Her husband met the accused and then came and told her that the accused was demanding Rs. 10 as bribe to end the matter. To avoid further harassment, they agreed to pay the same. Next day, i.e., on 18th August, 1960, her husband went and paid a sum of Rs. 10 to the accused. Thereafter, she did not receive any such pseudonymous letters nor was the enquiry proceeded with further. Her evidence has been corroborated by her husband, P.W. 6 Parashuram. He has stated that after getting the pseudonymous letters, his wife was terribly upset and sat weeping at home. After discussion with his wife, he went to see the accused to put a stop to this matter. The accused then asked him to pay Rs. 10 and promised that he would end the matter. Thereafter, they decide to pay Rs. 10 to end the matter. The next day, he took the amount of Rs. 10 and paid it to the accused in his house. After that, the whole matter ended. The evidence of these two witnesses has not been shaken in cross-examination. No ill-will by these witnesses against the accused has been made out. The only suggestion made is that they have deposed falsely at the instance of Kadab group of teachers, which has been denied by them. They are the neighbours of the accused and there is absolutely no reason why they should come and depose falsely against the accused. No ill-will by these witnesses against the accused has been made out. The only suggestion made is that they have deposed falsely at the instance of Kadab group of teachers, which has been denied by them. They are the neighbours of the accused and there is absolutely no reason why they should come and depose falsely against the accused. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to make us reject their evidence. Their version is further corroborated by the documents produced by them. The learned Special Judge had the benefit of seeing these witnesses in the box and he has believed their evidence. No case has beer made out as to why we should reject their evidence. P.W. 7 Narmadabai was working in 1960 as Head Mistress in School No. 4 of the Municipal School Board, Belgaum. On 12th October, 1960, she received a communication, Exhibit 39, from the Administrative Officer's Office, calling for her explanation regarding her conduct and behaviour in respect of the allegations made against her. To that she sent a reply, Exhibit 40, dated 13th October, 196O. On 17th October, 1960, she went to the Administrative Office to make enquiry as to how her reply had been disposed of. She met the accused who was the Head Clerk of that Office. The accused took her to the backyard of the Office and he threatened her with suspension. Thereafter, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 to end the matter. She got frightened and promised to pay the amount the next day. Next day, she went to the Office at 2 p.m. and paid him the said sum in the backyard of the office. After receiving the amount, the accused sent back the entire correspondence, Exhibit 39, making an endorsement in his own. handwriting below it (Exhibit 39-A) and asking her to keep it in the school record. Sri Devaraj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that no complaint had been given by P.W. 7 Narmadabai and there is no corroboration of her evidence. We see no force in these contentions. People who are compelled to give bribes are naturally reluctant to go and complain about it. The evidence of this witness has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. We see no force in these contentions. People who are compelled to give bribes are naturally reluctant to go and complain about it. The evidence of this witness has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. The story told by her is fully corroborated by the documents produced by her and particularly, the endorsement, Exhibit 39-A made by the accused in his own hand. The only suggestion made to her in cross-examination is that she is deposing at the instance of Kadabi and Barde group, which she has denied. There is absolutely no reason why this lady should come and depose falsely against the accused against whom she had no ill-will. The learned Special Judge, who had the benefit of seeing her in the box, has believed her evidence. We have no hesitation in accepting her evidence as true. Sri Devaraj has contended that the procedure followed by the learned Special Judge is illegal. The criticism made is that the learned Special Judge took up for hearing the three different cases against the accused and went on recording evidence in them simultaneously. The argument is that the Special Judge should have taken up the hearing of each case separately and after completing the recording of evidence in one case, he should have taken up other cases. In this connection, we may point out that the learned Special Judge in paragraph 3 of his judgment has stated that at the time of hearing, both sides (prosecution and defence) agreed that since the bulk of the evidence was going to be common to almost all the cases, the cases should be heard together and the evidence of the witnesses recorded separately in all the three cases. This was obviously done to prevent inconvenience to the witnesses and to avoid their coming to Court on three different occasions. The learned Special Judge has stated that this was done with the consent of the Advocates on both sides. After having consented to this procedure, the accused now turns round and contends that the procedure followed is not correct. It has not been shown that the procedure followed is illegal and it has not been contended that the accused has in any way been prejudiced by following this procedure. The next question to be considered is whether the charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, has been made out against the accused. It has not been shown that the procedure followed is illegal and it has not been contended that the accused has in any way been prejudiced by following this procedure. The next question to be considered is whether the charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, has been made out against the accused. It is not disputed that the accused was a public servant and was working as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the office of the Administrative Officer who was in charge of the Municipal Board Schools. It has been proved by the evidence of P.W. 5. Nirmalabai and P.W. 7, Narmadabai that the accused obtained and accepted illegal gratification as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render service in his capacity as Head Clerk in the Office of the Administrative Officer. In Mahesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 considering the ingredients of section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, at page 71 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as follows: “To constitute an offence under this section, 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 for doing. He may accordingly be guilty of cheating. Nonetheless he is guilty of the offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.” We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Special Judge that the charge under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, had been established beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant accused. We, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the learned Special Judge for the offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. S.V.S.-----Appeal dismissed.