Judgment :- V.K. Dorairajan, the petitioner herein, faced a trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in C.C. No. 190 of 1976, for an offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. An appeal against the conviction and sentence was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Salem, in C.A. No. 79 of 1979. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The instant revision case is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows: 1. P.W.1 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur, in 1976. On 8th December, 1976 at about 9-30 p.m., the petitioner gained entry into the office-cum-residence of P.W.1 by sending a chit through P.W.3 the, camp clerk who gave it to P.W.2 orderly who in turn gave it to P.W.1. On entering the room, the petitioner gave a petition Exhibit P-4 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, with a. copy to P.W.1, requesting recommendation of the assignment of the poramboke land adjacent to, the police station in lieu of his 12 cents of patta land encroached by the police station. It is the prosecution case that thereafter he placed a cover on the table. When P.W.1, checked it. he found ten 50 rupee currency notes. Immediately P.W.1 called his camp clerk P.W.3 and Sub-Inspector, P.W.4. who were there present. They saw the cover taken by P.W.1 with notes as aforesaid. Subsequently, a case was registered against the petitioner for an offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence of the petitioner was one of denial. He stated that his case was foisted on him by P.W.1 at the instance of one Selvaraj, the then Superintendent of Police, Coim-batore, and one Rathnasabapathi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karaikkal, who were the classmates of P.W.1 and who were related to one Arumugam, who was enemi-cally disposed of towards the petitioner on account of land disputes. 4. The incident is said to have taken place at the office-cum-residence of P.W.1. 4. The incident is said to have taken place at the office-cum-residence of P.W.1. After gaining entry into the room, it is the evidence of P.W.1, that the petitioner gave a petition and then placed a cover containing ten 50 rupee " currency notes on the table. P.W.1 asked. P.Ws. 3 and 4 to come and they saw the cover. The fact that it happened in the residence-cum-office of P.W.1 enables natural witnesses like P.W.2 orderly, P.W.3 camp clerk and P.W.4, a Sub-Inspector, who came to see P.W.1 to be present there. Both the Courts below have accepted the, evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is also not able to discredit their evidence. I accept, as the lower Courts have done, that on 8th December, 1976 at about 9-30 p.m., the petitioner offered a bribe of Rs. 500 to P.W.1 for recommending assignment of the poramboke land adjacent to the police station in lieu of 12 cents of his patta land occupied by the police station in and around it. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that previously similar petition like that of Exhibit P-1 was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.1, by the petitioner, requesting him to visit the place and allot the poramboke land to him. P. W. 1 on 30th November, 1976 inspected the poramboke land and found that it was not possible for allotment of any portion to the petitioner as per his endorsement in Exhibit P-1, as the land was just sufficient for parade purposes. It was argued that there was no need for the petitioner to present the petition Exhibit P-1 to P.W.1 and to give him money as he had already taken a definite stand against him. But it has to be noted that the Superintendent of Police, to whom the petition was addressed, will not dispose of the petition himself and he would definitely or in all probability send it to P.W.1 for his views. In such a case, P.W.1 would be in a position to review the matter and recommend the case of the petitioner. This seems to be the reason why the attempted to bribe P.W.1. 6. The petitioner filed a written statement under section 243, Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, there was long standing enmity between him and one Arumugam regarding trespass into the land. This seems to be the reason why the attempted to bribe P.W.1. 6. The petitioner filed a written statement under section 243, Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, there was long standing enmity between him and one Arumugam regarding trespass into the land. The suit filed by the petitioner is pending. The said Arumugam has married the sister of one Subramaniam, whose daughter has been married to the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, by name Selvaraj. The said Subra-maniam’s son Rathnasabapathi is a Deputy Superintendent of Police of Karaikkal. They are interfering in the matter of Arumugam through P.W.1, who was their classmate and a good friend. According to the petitioner, on 8th December, 1976, P.W.1 sent for him through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karumalaikudal Police Station, and when he went there, P.W.1 arrested him and foisted this case at the instance of the said Selvaraj and Rathinasabapathy, police officers. 7. In support of his averments, the petitioner examined D.Ws. 1 to 3. The Courts below have assessed the evidence of the defence witnesses and correctly came to the conclusion that they are not worthy of credence and found that this case was not foisted on the petitioner as stated by him. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner cannot be found guilty of the offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, unless it is found on the facts that if P.W.1 accepted the bribe in which case P.W.1 would be liable either under section 161 or 165, Indian Penal Code. Section 161, Indian Penal Code, deals with taking a gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, etc. Section 165 deals with Public servants obtaining any valuable thing without consideration from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. It is argued that P.W.1 has nothing to do with the assignment of the land which was to be decided’ by the Revenue Department. Even of the amount attempted to be paid to P.W.1 is true, it would not amount to giving a bribe as he cannot be found guilty either under section 161 or 165, Indian Penal Code. He is handicapped in obliging the petitioner as the matter pertains to some other department. 9. The learned Counsel cited before me a number of decisions in support of his contention. He is handicapped in obliging the petitioner as the matter pertains to some other department. 9. The learned Counsel cited before me a number of decisions in support of his contention. The following cases deal with section 161, Indian Penal Code. State of Ajmer v. Shivji Lal1, Dalpat Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan2, B. D. Gupta v. Tripura3; Bhanuprasad v. Gujrat4; Bishamphar Prasad v. Rex5and R. Venka-tesan v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore6. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor placed before me the following decisions regarding the scope of section 161, Indian Penal Code. Chatur Das v. Gujarat7 ; Makesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh8. 11. Section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, was inserted by the Criminal Law . Amendment Act (XLVI of 1952). A person offering bribe can be prosecuted under this section as it is a distinct offence. The section provides for the punishment for the abetment of an offence punishable under section 161 or 165, Indian Penal Code, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the abetment. The prosecution should prove the abatment of an offence under section 161 or 165, Indian Penal Code. The legislature has clearly and expressly made provisions for punishment for abetment of offences under sections 161 and 165, Indian Penal Code. 12. The petitioner has been found guilty for abetment of the offence under section 165, Indian Penal Code. Hence it is not necessary for me to deal with the contentions raised regarding the abetment of section 161, Indian Penal Code. 13. Under section 165, Indian Penal Code, it is an offence for a public servant to accept or obtain any valuable thing from any person whom he knowns to have been or to be or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate. 14. In the instant case, P.W.1 has made an inspection and sent an adverse report against the interests of the petitioner. The matter pending before the Superintendent of Police, a superior officer of P.W.1, is likely to be referred to P.W.1 for his view and, in such a case, undoubtedly, P.W.1 would be in a position to review the matter and recommend the case of the petitioner. The matter pending before the Superintendent of Police, a superior officer of P.W.1, is likely to be referred to P.W.1 for his view and, in such a case, undoubtedly, P.W.1 would be in a position to review the matter and recommend the case of the petitioner. If, in such circumstances, P.W.1 had accepted gratification, that would certainly amount to an offence under section 165, Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary to offer the bribe to the public servant who is in a position to do that official act required by the bribe giver. If any public servant is offered a bribe for acting in favour of the bribe giver, the offence is made out under section 165-A. All that is required is to show that the bribe giver wanted the particular public servant to show him a favour. It is the mens rea of the bribe giver that has to be taken into consideration and not whether the particular public servant was in fact in a position to do a favour to him. Thus, in the instant case, the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I hold the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under section 165-A, Indian Penal Code, by the Courts below is correct. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment cannot be said to be excessive. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are confirmed. The criminal revision fails and is dismissed.