Judgment P.N. Goel, J. 1. PHERU, appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 451 and 165-A IPC to undergo RJ for 6 months and one year respectively. Sentences have been made to run concurrently. 2. THE appellant Pheru had filed a suit no. 120 of 1972 for cancellation of a sale deed. This suit was pending in the court of Sri K. N. Singh, III Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad, PW 1. Evidence had been concluded. Arguments were heard on 22-10-1973. THE record was with the Additional Munsif for writing out the judgment. On 24-10-73 at about 9-30 or 9-45 a. m., the appellant attempted to give illegal gratification to the Additional Munsif. With that end in view he reached his residential house with a basket containing some fruits and an envelope containing a sum of Rs. 50000 in currency notes. The appellant did not admit the allegations. 3. THE prosecution examined Sri K. N. Singh and his peon Kalu Ram, PWs 1 and 2. They deposed the facts stated above. 4. SRI K. N. Singh sent Kalu Ram with a report immediately to the police station Kotwali, Ghaziabad. Mohd. Haneef S. I. PW 6, immediately rushed to the residence of the Additional Munsif and took the basket in police custody along with currency notes of Rs. 500/-. The learned Special Judge, Meerut, has believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant. 5. THE learned counsel for the appellant first of all submitted that there was no completed offence under Section 165-A IPC. This contention is not correct. Positive evidence of Sri K. N. Singh is that the appellant came inside his room, kept the basket containing fruits and Rs. 500-00 in currency notes on the floor of his room and stood with folded hands. He asked the appellant to immediately take away the basket. Despite this, the appellant left the basket and went away from the room of Sri K.N. Singh. Immediately then Kalu Ram came up. A report was sent to the police through him. THE basket containing fruits and Rs. 500.00 were taken into custody by the sub-Inspector, 6. IT is proved on record that the appellant had a civil case before the learned Munsif. The action of the appellant in leaving the basket in the room of the Munsif makes the offence complete. A report was sent to the police through him. THE basket containing fruits and Rs. 500.00 were taken into custody by the sub-Inspector, 6. IT is proved on record that the appellant had a civil case before the learned Munsif. The action of the appellant in leaving the basket in the room of the Munsif makes the offence complete. The mute conduct of the appellant is too conspicuous to make out both the offences under Sections 451 and 165-A IPC. The appellant's counsel then pointed out that the appellant was perhaps asked by somebody to carry the basket to the residence of the learned Munsif in order to succeed in the case, or he did not take away the basket thinking that the case would be decided in his favour. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellant was a simple and innocent type of person. He did the act in question intentionally. Therefore, in either case suggested by the appellant's counsel the appellant is clearly guilty of both the offences. 7. THE appellant's counsel further urged that in the matter of sentence a lenient view be taken and sentence of fine only be imposed on the appellant. This contention so far as Section 451 IPC is concerned is not maintainable. Under Section 431 IPC sentence of imprisonment has to be passed. Sentence of mere fine cannot be passed under this section. 8. UNDER Section 165-A, sentence of fine alone can be passed. The appellant's counsel has cited two cases :-(1) State of Orissa v. Sheo Prasad Moda, AIR 1952 Orissa 180. In this case the respondent wanted a favour from the Sub-Inspector and offerred to give him a sum of Rs. 500. 00. Then a trap was laid and the respondent was arrested. The respondent was a marwari merchant. The Magistrate sentenced him to 6 months' RI and a fine of Rs. 500.00. In appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the imprisonment and reduced the fine to Rs. 200.00. The. State preferred a revision. The sentence passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside and the one passed by the Magistrate restored. This case does not help the appellant. There is nothing in the instant case to show that the appellant was a simple and innocent type of person and that he was made to commit the illegal act by some one else. The sentence passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside and the one passed by the Magistrate restored. This case does not help the appellant. There is nothing in the instant case to show that the appellant was a simple and innocent type of person and that he was made to commit the illegal act by some one else. (2) Bhim Singh v. State, AIR 1955 Raj. 108 . In this case the S. D. M. passed a final order on the appellant's application. Then the appellant requested the Magistrate to take something from him and pass order in his favour and while saying so he put his hand into his pocket and brought out a money-bag. Thus it was a simple case of an offer of bribe. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100/-. This case is also not helpful to the appellant because in this case the appellant notwithstanding the direction of the Munsif, left the basket containing fruits and Rs. 500.00 in cash. Thus it is a case of completed act on the part of the appellant. 9. THE occurrence took place in October, 1973. THE conviction was recorded on 2-6-1975. THE appeal has come up for hearing after 4 years. THE appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months under Section 451. He has further been sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 165-A. As the appeal has come up for disposal about 6 years after the occurrence, it will be appropriate to reduce the sentence of one year to 6 months under Section 165-A IPC. 10. APPEAL is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 451 IPC recorded by the Special Judge, Meerut are affirmed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 165-A IPC is also maintained, but the sentence is reduced from one year to 6 months. The sentences will run concurrently. The appellant is on bail. He shall forthwith surrender to serve out the sentence, otherwise he shall be arrested. APPEAL dismissed.