JUDGMENT : Grover, J. 1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi by which the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter called the Act, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was confirmed and the sentences imposed by the Special Judge were maintained. 2. The appellant, at the material time, was working as Section Inspector in the House Tax Department of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. On May 7, 1964 Bhim Sen and Raj Pal who were occupants of certain shops in Yusaf Sarai received notices from the Municipal Corporation for demolition of their shops. It appears that both these persons filed suits in the court of the District Judge, Delhi and obtained orders staying demolition. The cases were then transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge. Bhim Sen required the copies of the House tax Assessment List of the Corporation in respect of the property from 1959 to 1964 and submitted an application for the said purpose on July 14, 1964. It is alleged that he made other similar applications but was unsuccessful in obtaining the copies. Bhim Sen contacted the appellant who demanded Rs. 100 as gratification for supplying the requisite copies. It was ultimately agreed that he would be paid Rs. 50. This payment was to be made on September 7, 1964. On September 5, 1964, Bhim Sen reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Branch of Police, Delhi. Shri Ram Saran Das, the Deputy Superintendent, arranged a raid and the case of the prosecution is that Bhim Sen produced five currency notes of Rs. 10 each, the Nos. of which were noted by the D.S.P. These currency notes were returned to Bhim Sen in the presence of Mohanjit Rai PW6 and Munshi Ram PW 7. The raiding party which included the D.S.P. and the aforesaid two witnesses who were Lower Division Clerks in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, reached the shop of Bhim Sen at 1 p.m. on September 7, 1964. Head Constable Udey Singh was also a member of the raiding party. Rajpal PW 2 occupant of the neighbouring shop turned up at the material time. Head Constable Udey Singh was also a member of the raiding party. Rajpal PW 2 occupant of the neighbouring shop turned up at the material time. The appellant came to the shop of Bhim Sen (who appeared as PW 1) at about 2.30 p.m. He brought with him the House Tax Register and the copies of the Assessment List which were required by Bhim Sen for the purpose of his litigation. The appellant is alleged to have given the copies to Bhim Sen but the latter objected that they were only for two years whereas the copies were required for a period of five years. Bhim Sen thereafter handed back copies to the appellant and requested him to get all the copies. Further Bhim Sen is alleged to have given the currency notice which had been marked in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent, to the appellant who took the money and promised to supply all the requisite copies on September 9, 1968. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant took the currency notes in his left hand. Udey Singh Head Constable PW 5 apprehending that the appellant might throw the money caught hold of his hand and Munshi Ram PW 7 gave the arranged signal whereupon the D.S.P. along with some other witnesses came there. The D.S.P. seized the notes from the left hand of the appellant. He made the necessary memorandum (panchnama). He also seized the register as also the copies. After due investigation the case was registered against the appellant. The learned Special Judge believed the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution and held that the appellant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. He was sentenced to 2½ years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. He was further awarded 1= years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. On appeal the High Court reviewed the evidence and examined the contentions that were addressed by the defence counsel. It was urged before the learned Judge of the High Court that the case had been falsely concocted by Bhim Sen and Rajpal in connivance with Samey Singh PW 8 was Lower Division Clerk in the Delhi Municipal Corporation. That contention, however, was repelled. It was urged before the learned Judge of the High Court that the case had been falsely concocted by Bhim Sen and Rajpal in connivance with Samey Singh PW 8 was Lower Division Clerk in the Delhi Municipal Corporation. That contention, however, was repelled. The only other argument which seems to have been addressed related to the minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was observed by the learned Judge that as their evidence had been recorded after certain lapse of time discrepancies of the nature shown were likely to occur. The appeal was consequently dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to raise four points before us. The first is that the ingredients of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act had not been established in the present case. Secondly, it is said, that the appellant could not be convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code without it being shown by the prosecution that it was within the competence of the appellant to give the copies. Thirdly it is urged that the evidence consist mostly of members of the raiding party and interested witnesses and there was hardly any independent evidence. The fourth submission is that there has been no proper appreciation and appraisement of evidence by the trial court and the High Court. 5. Now Section 5(1)(d) of the Act is in the following terms: "5. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. *** (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or." It is submitted that the word "obtains" in the above provision imports a compulsive or persuasive element. In other words it has to be shown by the prosecution that the appellant employed some kind of compulsion or manoeuvring for extracting the illegal gratification. We consider it wholly unnecessary in this case to dwell at length on the meaning of the word "obtain". Even on the assumption that an element of effort is involved in the act of obtaining it is not possible to say that the appellant, on the evidence which has been produced, made no such effort. We consider it wholly unnecessary in this case to dwell at length on the meaning of the word "obtain". Even on the assumption that an element of effort is involved in the act of obtaining it is not possible to say that the appellant, on the evidence which has been produced, made no such effort. It is quite obvious and need not be repeated that it was the appellant who was prepared to go out of his way to supply the copies of the House Tax Register although admittedly it was not a part of his duty to supply such copies. According to Bhim Sen PW 1 the appellant visited the shop of Raj Pal after August 24, 1964 himself and demanded illegal gratification. He made a second attempt on September 5, 1964 outside the court of the Additional District Judge. The first contention therefore must be repelled. 6. As regards the second point it has already been held by this court in Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi Administration, Cr. A. 124 of 1966 decided on 1-5-68, that when a public servant is charged under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and it is alleged that illegal gratification was taken by him for doing or procuring an official act it is not necessary for the court to consider whether or not the accused public servant was capable of doing or intended to do such an act. 7. On the third point nothing much need be said. This court does not normally interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the trial court or the High Court. It may be that Mohanjit Rai PW 6 and Munshi Ram PW 7 are Lower Division Clerks in the Delhi Administration but that does not mean that they have given false evidence. It would certainly be highly commendable on the part of the police to take such witnesses with the raiding party against whom no suggestion can be made that they are stock witnesses of the police. But one of these witnesses cannot be considered to be a stock witnesses. Mohanjit Rai PW 6 appeared as a witness some years ago only once. Munshi Ram PW 7 admitted having joined six or seven raiding parties and having appeared as a witness in Corporation cases two or three times. But one of these witnesses cannot be considered to be a stock witnesses. Mohanjit Rai PW 6 appeared as a witness some years ago only once. Munshi Ram PW 7 admitted having joined six or seven raiding parties and having appeared as a witness in Corporation cases two or three times. But their evidence has been believed by the trial court and the High Court and we see no reason to interfere on a question of appraisal of evidence. 8. The last contention that there has been no proper appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court has hardly any merit. The attention of the High Court, as noticed earlier, was drawn to certain minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses but as has been rightly observed such discrepancies would naturally occur when the evidence is recorded after a certain lapse of time. 9. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.