JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - Vijai Nath Awasthi was Lekhpal of Rajdhani Circle which included village Arndiha. Ram Kumar, his brother Ram Awadh and their brother's widow Smt. Balkesa were joint tenants of a Khata. On the death of Smt. Balkesa the two brothers applied that her share also be recorded in their favour and her name be expugned. This case was pending in the court of the Tahsildar, Sadar. On September 19, 1968 the applicants took steps for the Lekhpal being summoned as a witness and he was directed to be summoned for October 8, 1968. The case was adjourned to October 25, 1968 as the Lekhpal had appeared without I his papers. On that date the accused was not present in court when the case was called out for hearing and it was directed that a warrant for his arrest and production in court on November 7, 1968 be issued. The accused, however, appeared after a short while and he was directed to be present on November 7, 1968. According to the prosecution case the accused had been demanding Rs. 200 from Ram Kumar for giving evidence in the case. On or about the 1st November 1968 Ram Kumar told the accused that he will pay him Rs. 100/- in the Katchchari on the date fixed. On November 7, 1968 Ram Kumar complained about the matter to the Additional District Magistrate (Executive). The latter recorded his statement and sent him to the Superintendent of Police for necessary action, who in his turn directed him to Sri M.S. Chauhan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, for laying a trap. Sri Chauhan sent for Inspector B. K. Dixit, Station Officer, Cantonment, and through him called two witnesses, namely, Prayag Dutt and Shyam Lal and in their presence Ram Kumar produced nine currency notes of rupees ten each and five currency notes of rupee one each. A memo was prepared in which the number of these notes were noted. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was told about the presence of the accused in the Verandah of the treasury building and that money would be given to him there. The Deputy Superintendent of Polices directed the two withness to accompany Ram Kumar and witness the passing of the money. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was told about the presence of the accused in the Verandah of the treasury building and that money would be given to him there. The Deputy Superintendent of Polices directed the two withness to accompany Ram Kumar and witness the passing of the money. He further directed Ram Kumar that the money should be given to the accused after the Deputy Superintendent of Police had reached there and that he should signal him after the money had been paid to the accused. Ram Kumar along with the witnesses left for the place where the money was to be given to the accused. Sri Chauhan reached to the north of the treasury building after changing into plain clothes. At about 3.30 P. M. Ram Kumar gave the fourteen currency notes to the accused which the accused put in the pocket of his Kurta and proceeded with Ram Kumar to the court of the Tahsildar which was at a short distance to the north of the treasury building. On receiving the pre-arranged signal Sri Chauhan went to the accused and told him that he would be searched for the money that he had accepted as a bribe. The accused jerked himself free and fled towards the southern side. He was chased by Sri Chauhan and several other persons. 2. Before his arrest he took out the currency notes from the pocket of his Kurta and after tearing the notes he threw them away. At that very moment constable Jang Bahadur Lal reached there from another direction and arrested him. The fourteen currency notes were picked up by tie Deputy Superintendent of Police. The five currency notes of rupee one each were intact. Nine currency notes of rupees ten each had been torn. A large crowd had assembled there and five torn pieces could not be found. An examination of the numbers of the notes disclosed that they were the same fourteen notes whose numbers had been noted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the memo. A recovery memo was prepared and sealed in an envelope. The accused was taken to police station Cantonment where a report was prepared and on its basis a First Information Report was recorded. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied having demanded any money from Ram Kumar for giving evidence in his mutation case. A recovery memo was prepared and sealed in an envelope. The accused was taken to police station Cantonment where a report was prepared and on its basis a First Information Report was recorded. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied having demanded any money from Ram Kumar for giving evidence in his mutation case. He stated that he was going towards the court of Tahsildar followed by Ram Kumar and when he reached in front of that court the police men came and said that bribe had been accepted by him and then Ram Kumar pointed that there was money in his pocket and then he fled and as he apprehended that the money was in his pocket, he took it out and threw it away. He further asserted that the notes were surreptitiously introduced in the pocket of his Kurta by Ram Kumar. The accused also asserted that some members of the Samyukt Socialist Party, including Dutt, who was the President of the District Sanyukt Socialist Party, were displeased with him and got him falsely implicated. 4. The fact that the marked currency notes were given to the accused by Ram Kumar and it was recovered in the manner set out above is established from the testimony of Ram Kumar (P.W. 1), Prayag Dutt (P.W. 2) and Sri M. B Chauhan (P.W.6). It was contended that there was no corroboration of the statement of Ram Kumar with regard to the demand of money by the accused and as the mutation application was uncontested there could be no occasion for the accused demanding any illegal gratification from Ram Kumar. Apart from the testimony of Ram Kumar the statement of the accus. ed itself proves that money was paid to him by Ram Kumar and that could not have been done unless a demand for it had been made by the accused. It has not been shown that Ram Kumar had any enmity with the accused and was interested in his false implication. In these circumstances any corroboration of Ram Kumar's testimony was not called for. The testimony of Prayag Dutt (P.W. 2) was sought to be assailed on the ground that in the mid-term poll to the Vidhan Sabha the accused supported the B. K. D. candidate against the Sanyukt Socialist Party candidate and on that account Prayag Dutt prevailed upon Ram Kumar to implicate the accused. The testimony of Prayag Dutt (P.W. 2) was sought to be assailed on the ground that in the mid-term poll to the Vidhan Sabha the accused supported the B. K. D. candidate against the Sanyukt Socialist Party candidate and on that account Prayag Dutt prevailed upon Ram Kumar to implicate the accused. It may be noted that the mid-term poll took place in February 1969, i e. after the occurrence in question. It may be that but for the intervention of Prayag Dutt Ram Kumar might have quietly paid the money to the accused but the evidence on record does not indicate that Prayag Dutt was interested in falsely implicating the accused. The testimony of Sri Chauhan, a responsible police officer, lends full support to the statements of Ram Kumar and Prayag Dutt. It has not been shown that Sri Chauhan had animus against the accused and on that account associated himself in the plain alleged to have been hatched by Prayag Dutt and Ram Kumar. As mentioned earlier, the testimony of the witnesses finds support from the statement of the accused himself. There appears to be no reason to doubt the correctness of the prosecution case. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even if the prosecution story with regard to the payment of money to the accused and its recovery be accepted, no offence under Section 161, I.P.C. or under Section 5 (2} of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been made out. The contention was that it was no part of the duty of the accused to appear as a witness in the mutation case and the fact that the accused was a Lekhpal and thus a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code did not necessarily imply that when he accepted Rs. 95/- the complainant, he did it as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or for bearing to shown, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. The contention has no merits. 95/- the complainant, he did it as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or for bearing to shown, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. The contention has no merits. The ingredients of an offence under Section 161, I.P.C. stand satisfied if (1) the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be a public servant, (2) that he accepted, or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification, (3) that such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him, and (4) that he accepted the gratification in question as motive or reward, for (a) doing or fore bearing to do an official act or (b) showing, or fore bearing to show favour or disfavour to some one in the exercise of his official functions or (c) rendering, or attempting to under, any service or disservice to some one, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any public servant. The appellant was admittedly a public servant and he obtained from the complainant illegal gratification for appearing in the court of the Tehsildar in the mutation case initiated by the complainant and his brother on the death of Smt. Balkesa. The appellant was required to appear before the Tehsildar with the relevant revenue papers. The presence of the appellant was required not in his personal capacity but in his capacity as a Lekhpal whose duty was to maintain the revenue records. It is thus obvious that his presence was needed in his official capacity. The fact that the mutation case was uncontested has no relevance in deciding the question whether the appellant obtained illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or fore bearing to do an official act or for showing or fore bearing to show favour or disfavour to some one in the exercise of his official functions. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 161, I.P.C. it is not necessary that favour must be shown to the bribe giver as a fact. It would be sufficient if he was led to believe that the matter would go against him if he did not meet the demand of the public servant. In order to bring the case within the purview of Section 161, I.P.C. it is not necessary that favour must be shown to the bribe giver as a fact. It would be sufficient if he was led to believe that the matter would go against him if he did not meet the demand of the public servant. It is not necessary that the official act must be an act which a public servant is obliged to do. The gist of offences is the public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. In the present case the appellant in his official capacity as a Lekhpal was required to appear in court with the relevant revenue records and when lie tried to obtain illegal gratification for that purpose, the requirements of Section 161, I.P.C. stand satisfied. 6. The appellant was also charged with having committed an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Section 5 (1) (d) at the relevant time read : "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" 7. The ingredients of an re fence under clause (d) of Section 5 (1) of the Act are (1) that the accused should be a public servant, (2) that he should use some corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abuse his position as a public servant (3) that he should have thereby obtained valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and (4) for himself or for any other person. It is clear that the legislature advisedly widen the scope of the crime by giving a very wide definition in Section 5 of the Act with a view to punish those who, holding public office and taking advantage of their official position, obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The offence under this section is wider and not narrower than the offence of bribery as defined in Section 161, I.P. C. The words "in the discharge of his duty" do not constitute an essential ingredient of the offence. The offence under this section is wider and not narrower than the offence of bribery as defined in Section 161, I.P. C. The words "in the discharge of his duty" do not constitute an essential ingredient of the offence. These words, which found a place in original Section 5, have been omitted by Section 6 of the Anti-Corruption Law (Amendment) Act 40 of 1561. Even before the amendment the Supreme Court in Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration held that the words "in the discharge of his duty" do not constitute an essential ingredient of the offence. It was observed "In order to bring the charge home to an accused person under clause (d) aforesaid of the section, it is not necessary that the public servant in question, while misconducting himself, should have done so in the discharge of his duty. It would be anomalous to say that a public servant has misconducted himself in the discharge of his duty. Duty" and "misconduct" go all together. If a person has misconducted himself as a public servant, it would not ordinarily be in the discharge of his duty, but the reverse of it. That 'misconduct', which has been made criminal by "Section 5 of the Act, does not contain the element of discharge of his duty, by public servant, is also made clear by reference to the provisions of clause (c) of Section 5 (1). It is not necessary to constitute the offence under clause (d) of the section that the public servant must do something in connection with his own duty and thereby obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is equally wrong to say that if a public servant were to take money from a third person, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position, in order to corrupt some other public servant, without there being any question of his misconducting him self in the discharge of his own duty, he has not committed an offence under Section 5 (1) (d). It is also erroneous to hold that the essence of an offence under Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) (d), is that the public servant should do something in the discharge of his own duty and thereby obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary ad. vantage." 8. It is also erroneous to hold that the essence of an offence under Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) (d), is that the public servant should do something in the discharge of his own duty and thereby obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary ad. vantage." 8. The appellant by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for him-self pecuniary advantage and thus committed the offence of criminal misconduct as defined in Section 5 (11 (d) of the Act. The question whether the appellant was capable of or intended to show favour to the complainant was wholly immaterial. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on The State of Gujard v. Manshankar Prabhashanker Dwivedi, 1972 C.P.L.L.J. 1247 In that case it was emphasised that the abuse of position as a public tenant was an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act. The Supreme Court, affirming the view of the High Court, he'd that the principal accused was not a public h i servant when e was acting as an examiner and, therefore, it could not be said that there had been any abuse by him of his position as a public servant and as the principal accused was not guilty, the other accused also could not be held to be guilty of the offences with which he was charged. This case can be of no assistance to the appellant as he was admittedly a public servant at the time when the offence was committed. 10. The principle laid down in Dr. K.L. anand v. The State, A.I.R. 1956 Alld. 673 is equally in-applicable in the present case. In that case the accused was the Medical Officer In-charge of a Government hospital and thus a public servant but he had a right of private practice also. 10. The principle laid down in Dr. K.L. anand v. The State, A.I.R. 1956 Alld. 673 is equally in-applicable in the present case. In that case the accused was the Medical Officer In-charge of a Government hospital and thus a public servant but he had a right of private practice also. Ir was held that when the right of g private practice was given to the accused, he, when giving his report was not acting in the discharge of his official duty and consequently he could not be convicted under Section 161, I.P.C. It was also observed that a misconduct, which was punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act was a misconduct in the discharge of duties as a public servant and therefore where the accused was not acting as a public servant but in the exercise of his right as a private practitioner, he could not be regarded as having committed misconduct in the discharge of his duty as a public servant nor could he be regarded to have obtained any pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as servant. Reliance was also placed on Ram Charan Bhatt v. State, A.I.R. 1967 Alld. 321 In that case the accused, who was the Secretary, Nyaya Panchayat, agreed to identify the complainant before the Block Development Officer on payment of Rs. 40/ as his remuneration. It was held that in the absence of any specific rule prohibiting the holder of the post of Secretary, Nyaya Panchayat from identifying another before another public servant in a matter unconnected with the official duties of the identifier and from accepting pecuniary advantage for identifying, it cannot be said that the act of identification and the acceptance of pecuniary advantage will be an abuse of the official position of the identifier. It was also held that there was nothing to indicate that the accused approached the Block Development Officer either directly or indirect- ly to prevail upon him to show any favour to the complainant in the exercise of his official functions. In these circumstances it was ruled that the accused was not guilty of the offences under Sections 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Act. In these circumstances it was ruled that the accused was not guilty of the offences under Sections 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Act. The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases will not be applicable in the present case where the accused obtained illegal gratification by abusing his position as a public servant and not in his private capacity. The accused was required to appear with the revenue records which it was his duty to maintain in his capacity as a Lekhpal and when he obtained illegal gratification for doing that act, it must be held that he abused his position as a public servant. 11. In the result the appeal has no merits and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 161, I.P.C. and also under Section 5 (2) of the Act are affirmed. He is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.