Judgment P.N. Goel, J. 1. ASHA Ram, appellant, Assistant Registrar Qanoongo, attached to Tahsil Agra, has been convicted and sentenced under sections 161 IPC and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months on each count. The sentences have been made to run concurrently. 2. PACTS giving rise to this appeal are these. Bedi Lal and Munni Lal, PWs 2 and 3 are natives of village Samogar, Police Station Deoki, district Agra. They had agricultural lands in Samogar. Munni Lal used to live at Calcutta in connection with service. These two persons agreed to exchange their agricultural fields. On 27-5-1976 Munni Lal moved an application. Ex. Ka. 7 before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Agra for the exchange of his fields with those of Bedi Ram. On 5-6-1976 Bedi Ram filed written statement '"indicating his consent to the proposed exchange. On the same day the Sub-Divisional Officer passed order that the file be put up before Tahsildar, Agra on 21-6-1976 and parties be informed accordingly. On 21-6-1976 Bedi Ram went to Tehsil Agra and met the appellant. The appellant told him that the file had not been received in Tahsil. Thereupon Bedi Ram and Munni Lal reached the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer and came to know that the file had not been sent to Tahsil till then and that it would be sent on the next day. On 22-6-1976, Mahendra Nath, PW 3, clerk of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Agra, sent the record to Tahsil. The file was received in Tahsil on 23-6-1976 at about 8 A. M. by K. S. Kulshresth, PW 4, revenue clerk, Tehsil. In the month of June, 1976 there were morning court of offices. On the same day K. S. Kulshresth obtained order from the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar marked the file to Naib Tahsildar/Registrar Qanoongo. Under the verbal instructions of the Registrar Qanungo, the files marked for him are handed over to the Assistant Registrar Qanoongo of the concerned area. Therefore, on 23-6-76 Kulshresth entered the file of this case aswell as other files in the despatch register to be handed over to the appellant. The file of the present case was received by the appellant on the same day. But he signed of its receipt! on 25-6-76. On 23-6-76 Bedi Lal and Munni Lal met the appellant. Therefore, on 23-6-76 Kulshresth entered the file of this case aswell as other files in the despatch register to be handed over to the appellant. The file of the present case was received by the appellant on the same day. But he signed of its receipt! on 25-6-76. On 23-6-76 Bedi Lal and Munni Lal met the appellant. The appellant told them that their file had been received but they would have to pay some money. He demanded Rs. 200/- adding that without giving the said money their work would not be done. Munni Lal had Rs. 100/-with him. He immediately gave Rs. 100/- to the appellant. Bedi Lal promised to bring the money from his house within a day or two. On reaching their village Samogar there took place some consultation between Bedi Lal and Munni Lal and they decided to get a corrupt official/officer like the appellant arrested. Pooran Chand, a native of Samogar, also agreed to the suggestion of Bedi Lal and Muni Lal and he promised to accompany them. On 25-6-76 Bedi Lal, Munni Lal and Pooran Chand left their village and reached the Vigilance Office at Agra at about 10 A.M. In the way Bedi Lal got a complaint written out by Biri Singh (DW 1). Bedi Lal and others met Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and submitted the complaint to him. The Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) directed them to meet Deokinandan Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police :(Vigilance) (PW 1), who was having his seat outside his room. These three persons then met Deokinandan Sharma, who arranged to call two persons Mahendra Singh Sarpanch (PW 7) of village Albania, and Shy am Bir Singh of village Biharipur. Sri Romal Singh Dy. S. P. and three Inspectors Yogendra Pal Singh, Bhenwar Pal Singh and P. C. Agnihotri were also there. Bedi Lal affirmed his complaint and produced a currency note of Rs. 100/- which was meant to be given as bribe to the appellant. Deokinandan Sharma made his initial on the currency note and its number was noted. Phenophthalein powder was applied on the currency note by Yogendra Pal Singh Inspector. The currency note was then handed over to Bedi Lal for being handed over to the appellant as bribe money. Thereafter all the persons left the Vigilance Office and reached the compound of police hospital which is near Tehsil. Phenophthalein powder was applied on the currency note by Yogendra Pal Singh Inspector. The currency note was then handed over to Bedi Lal for being handed over to the appellant as bribe money. Thereafter all the persons left the Vigilance Office and reached the compound of police hospital which is near Tehsil. After formality of personal search of all the persons, at about 1.30 P.M. Deokinandan Sharma, Yogendra Pal Singh, Bedi Lal and Munni Lal went into the room of the Qanungo. Mahendra Singh and some other persons remained in the verandah just out side the room of the Qanungo. Other persosns stood at tea Canteen. Bedi Lal started talking with Asha Ram who was doing work while sitting on a chair. Asha Ram asked him if he had brought Rs. 100/-. Bedi Lal asked him to reduce the amount. The appellant replied that he had taken Rs. 100/- from Munni Lal and, therefore, he would not reduce the amount. Bedi Lal then handed over the currency note of Rs. 100/- to the appellant requesting him to get his work done early. . The appellant kept the currency note in the front pocket of his shirt and then began to see the hie of Bedi Lal. Thereupon Deokinandan Sharma gave a signal to the persons standing in the verandah and tea canteen. Mahendra Singh and all others then went into the room of the Qanungo. Deokinarudan Sharma gave out his name and design-nation. Then he took search of the appellant and recovered the currency note of Rs. 100/- from the chest pocket of hie shirt. Hands of Bedi Lal and the appellant were got washed in Sodium Carbonate liquid. The colour became pink. The pocket of the shirt of the appellant was also washed in Sodium Carbonate liquid. The colour of the wash became pink. Recovery memo Ex. Ka 3 was prepared on the spot and duly signed. Another memo of the personal search of the appellant was duly prepared (Ex. Ka 4). It is said that copies of both these recovery memos were given to the appellant. Deokinandan Sharma then obtained the file of Bedi Lal by giving report to the Naib Tehsildar. The appellant was taken to police station Shahganj Agra where Deokinandan Sharma lodged report Ex. Ka 5 and handed over the appelant there. The appellant did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. Deokinandan Sharma then obtained the file of Bedi Lal by giving report to the Naib Tehsildar. The appellant was taken to police station Shahganj Agra where Deokinandan Sharma lodged report Ex. Ka 5 and handed over the appelant there. The appellant did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. He asserted that when he was working some body thrust currency note forcibly in his pocket, that when he looked up and found Bedi Lal only and none else, that he threw away the currency note, that then some persons came into his room. He was then taken to the police station. The recovery memo was not written at the alleged place of occurrence. He further asserted that he was previously Lekhpal, that Bedi Lal was having malice against him for two reasons (1) Bedi Lal was previously proceeded against for taking illegal possession of Gaon Samaj land on the basis of the entries made by him, and (2) 16 Biswas land out of 3 Bighas of plot no. 104 of Bedi Lal went under the waters of Jamuna. Therefore, he, as Lekhpal, had reduced his area. 3. THE prosecution examined Deokinandan Sharma, Bedi Lal, Munni Lal and Mahendra Singh (PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 7) to prove its case besides Shish Ram Singh, Vigilance Inspector (PW 8), who investigated into the case. THE prosecution also examined Mahendranath, clerk of the S. D. M. and K. L. Kulshreshtha, revenue clerk Tehsil (PWs 3 and 4). Reference has been made to their testimony above. 4. ON the other side the appellant examined Biri Singh and Sita Ram Sharma (DWs 1 and 2). Biri Singh is the scribe of the complaint application of Bedi Lal Ex. Ka 1. It was got written by Bedi Lal before reaching the Vigilance Office Agra on 25-6-76 at about 10 A.M. It means that the complaint was written out by Biri Singh some time before 10 A.M. Biri Singh stated that Bedi Lal got complaint Ex. Ka 1 written out by him on 25-6-76 at 7 P.M. Appellant has been arrested by Deokinandan Sharma at abuot 1.30 P.M. Report of the occurrence was lodged at police station Shahganj at 3.30 P.M. In all these circumstances the statement of Biri Singh cannot inspire confidence. 5. SITA Ram Sharma (DW 2), Supervisor Qanungo has proved entries of Khasra of the year 1968-69 (1376 F). 5. SITA Ram Sharma (DW 2), Supervisor Qanungo has proved entries of Khasra of the year 1968-69 (1376 F). His evidence is of no help to the appellant. 6. THE learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Agra believed the evidence of the prosecution wetnesses and 'convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences mentioned above. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been perused. 7. LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that Deokinandan Sharma (PW 1) was interested in the success of the trap, that Bedi Lal was inimical to the appellant from before, that Munni Lal was .companion of Bedi Lal, that Mahedra Singh had not supported the 'full version of the prosecution and that he gave evidence under the influence of the police officers and that, therefore, reliance should not be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 8. BEDI Lal and Munni have faithfully narrated the version of the prosecution. Deokinandan Sharma has corroborated their testimony on the material point of the giving of bribe money to the appellant and its recovery from the pocket of his shirt. Mahendra Singh was in the verandah. He did not catch/hear the talks which transpired between BEDI Lal and the appellant inside the room. He has also not stated about the passing of the money from BEDI Lal to the appellant. He has testified to only one fact and it is this that the currency note in question was recovered by the police officer from the front pocket of the shirt of the appellant. He has further stated that the hands of BEDI Lal and the pocket of the shirt of the appellant were got washed in a liquid and that the said liquid became pink. He further stated that he had signed on the recovery memo Ex Ka 3 and memo of the personal search of the appellant Ex. Ka. 4. Lastly, he has stated that the Vigilance Officer picked up file from the table. In cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he did not see any body forcibly thrusting the money in the pocket or the appellant throwing it away. In support of his contention: the appellant's counsel has referred to the cases of- (1) Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 . In cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he did not see any body forcibly thrusting the money in the pocket or the appellant throwing it away. In support of his contention: the appellant's counsel has referred to the cases of- (1) Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 . In this case it was laid down that evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who were concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness, and that in a proper case the Court might look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused. (2) Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1974 SC 218 . In this case the principle laid down in the case of Rum Prakash Arora (Supra) was referred to and in the circumstances of the case it was held that the evidence of trap witnesses was not sufficient to record the conviction of the accused and that the evidence of the trap witnesses should have been corroborated by some independent and trust-worthy evidence. 9. ON the other side the learned counsel for the State urged that an accused can be convicted merely on the evidence of the police officer who laid the trap in case his testimony was reliable and that in such a case no corroboration was necessary. The learned State counsel referred to the case of Hazari Lal v. The State, AIR 1980 SC 873 . In this case Paras Nath (PW 8) was Inspector Anti Corruption Department. He arranged said. The Supreme Court observed : "We, however, wish to say that the evidence of PW 8 is entirely trustworthy and there is no need to seek any corroboration. We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on suck matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance." In the present case, no doubt Deokinandan Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) arranged the raid, but on this ground alone his testimony cannot be brushed aside. The appellant's counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in his testimony on account of which his testimony should not be -believed. 10. BEDI Lal, no doubt, appears to have some enmity with the appellant. He was previously in the service of the police. He was a constable. Later on, he became a head constable. He remained in police service for about 10 years. There is, however, nothing to show that he ever worked with Deokinandan Sharma (PW 1). He has admitted that previously Asha Ram appellant was Lekhpal of his village Samogar. He has denied the suggestion that the appellant made entry of his illegal possession on Gram Samaj land. He, however, admitted that thare was a case under Section 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Then he stated that he did not remember if a sum of Rs. 1520/- was fined on him. Then he stated that the Tahsildar passed order directing him to leave the land and that then he left the land. He pleaded ignorance if this matter arose on the report of the appellant. This statement clearly shows that BEDI Lal had taken illegal possession of the land of Gaon Samaj, that there was a case under Section 115-C against him, that he was made to pay compensation of Rs. 1520/- and had to leave the land under the orders of the Tahsildar. This statement clearly shows that BEDI Lal had taken illegal possession of the land of Gaon Samaj, that there was a case under Section 115-C against him, that he was made to pay compensation of Rs. 1520/- and had to leave the land under the orders of the Tahsildar. Bedi Lal has then admitted that river Jamuna flows by the side of his village, that on this account there used to take place settlement of his village every five years, and that there did take place settlement at the time when the appellant was Lekhpal of his village. He has plot no. 104 measuring 3 bighas in his village. He was asked that because 16 Biswas land of plot no. 14 went under the waters of Jamuna the appellant reduced the area of his plot. Bedi Lal replied that he did not know. This goes to suggest that the assertion of the appellant is justified. 11. BEDI Lal has then admitted that there was partibandi amongst Parsu Ram Pradhan, Mukat Singh, Prabhu Dayal and him. Prabhu Dayal brought a case under Section 307 IPC in which he: was an accused. Asha Ram was Lekhpal at the time of the pendency of case. In connection with that case there took place some wrody altercation between him and the appellant. 12. THE above instances go to show that Bedi Lal had malice against the appellant from before the present occurrence. Therefore, it can be said that he can falsely concoct a case against the appellant. In this connection it will be noticed that Munni Lal (PW 3) had absolutely no malice or enmity against the appellant, Munni Lal simply wanted to exchange the land with that of Bedi Lal. On this ground it cannot be said that he would perjure himself simply under the influence of Bedi Lal. There appears no infirmity in the statement of Munni Lal. 13. MAHENDRA Singh is a respectable person of village Albanis. He was Sarpanch of his village at the time of occurrence. On the date of occurrence he was going from Power House towards Baloo Ganj at about 11.30 A.M. He was called in the Vigilance Office through a constable. This witness has given a limited statement which has been detailed above. His statement does not indicate that he was in any way under the influence of the police or the Vigilance Officers. This witness has given a limited statement which has been detailed above. His statement does not indicate that he was in any way under the influence of the police or the Vigilance Officers. His statement does not show that he was in any way connected with Bedi Lal and Munni Lal. In these circumstances it can easily be held that he is quite an independent and reliable witness. There is no reason not to believe his testimony. 14. THE position that follows is that reliance can easily be placed on the evidence of Deokinandan Sharma, Munni Lal and Mahendra Singh. THE testimony of these witnesses fully makes out the case sec up by the prosecution against the appellant. It may be remarked that there is no material on record to show except the statement of the appellant that the currency note in question was forcibly kept by some one in his pocket and that as soon as he saw Bedi Lal, he threw the currency note from his pocket. The statement of the appellant to this effect is clearly negatived by the testimony of Mahendra Singh. 15. FOR what has been discussed above it is fully proved that the currency note in question was recovered from the possession of .the appellant. There is no material on record to indicate that this currency note was kept by Bedi Lal in the pocket of the appellant. Taking into- account the statement of Munni Lal and Deokinandan Sharma as well as Mahendra Singh it can be said that this currency note was given to the appellant as bribe money. 16. LEARNED counsel for the appellant referred to the case of Bamhi Lal Yadava v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cri. L. J. 741 (SC) to show that if the currency note was forcibly thrust into the pocket of the accused, no presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 would arise. There is no dispute to this principle. But in the instant case, the currency note was not thrust into the pocket of the appellant by Bedi Lal or any body else. On the other hand the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully prove that Bedi Lal gave the currency note to the appellant and the appellant himself kept it in the pocket of his shirt. Therefore, the case of Banshi Lal Yadava does not help the appellant. On the other hand the evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully prove that Bedi Lal gave the currency note to the appellant and the appellant himself kept it in the pocket of his shirt. Therefore, the case of Banshi Lal Yadava does not help the appellant. Taking into consideration what has been found above, it is apparent that the appellant is guilty of the -offence defined in Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to Section 5 a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct in the circumstances detailed in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Clause (d) reads as follows : "(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 of pecuniary advantage; Taking into consideration the facts alleged and proved by the prosecution the case of the appellant squarely falls under this clause. 17. THE appellant's counsel contended that the appellant was not guilty of the offence under Section 161 IPC because the Tahsildar marked the file to the Naib Tahsildar and Registrar Qanungo, that the Registrar Qanungo was, therefore, to make a report in the matter and that the appellant could not have shown any favour to Bedi Lal and Munni Lal. 18. SECTION 161 punishes a public servant who accepts or obtains for himself or for any other person any gratification whatever, other then legal remuneration, as a motive for doing any official act or showing, in the exercise of his official functions, favour to any person. Expression "A motive or reward for doing" has been clarified in Section 161 itself in the following words: "A person who receives a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do,---" The appellant's counsel has referred to two cases : (1) Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637 . In this case the appellant was Excise Inspector and posted at Baghpat circle of Meerut. The complainant Ghammanlal was a licensed vendor of the liquor and drugs in the same area. He and his brothers had licences of 7 shops of liquor and 3 shops of drugs. In this case the appellant was Excise Inspector and posted at Baghpat circle of Meerut. The complainant Ghammanlal was a licensed vendor of the liquor and drugs in the same area. He and his brothers had licences of 7 shops of liquor and 3 shops of drugs. Ghammanlal made an application to the appellant on 22-3-1948 that appellant should recommend him to draw 50 gallons of liquor and 2 seers of Ganja from the bonded warehouse and go-down because the Holi festival was approaching. The appellant recommended only 8 gallons of liquor and 4 Cbhataks of Ganja and while making the recommendation he asked Ghamman Lal to pay him bribe at the rate of 5 per cent on the total amount of contract for the shops. On 23-3-1948 Ghamman Lal went to Meerut to obtain liquor from the warehouse. His friend Balwant Singh met him and advised him to contact the Anti-Corruption Department and make a complaint against the appellant. Ghammanlal told the Dy. S. P. Anti-Corruption Department that he would be paying Rs. 50/- as bribe. The currency notes were signed by the District Magistrate. Ghammanlal then approached the appellant and paid Rs. 48/- to the appellant who accepted them. Thereafter the appellant was apprehended and searched. The appellant contended that he never demanded any bribe from Ghammanlal, that Ghammanlal and Balwant Singh were highly inimical to him and that they had falsely implicated Mm. He further asserted that Ghammanlal had placed the money on the window sill, and that then he was got arrested. His further defence was that under the citrcular issued by the Excise Department the appellant was collecting subscriptions from all licensed shops. The magistrate, on an examination of the entire material, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The State preferred an appeal. High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was not a valid one. The Supreme Court further found that on facts the view of the High Court was not correct. The State preferred an appeal. High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was not a valid one. The Supreme Court further found that on facts the view of the High Court was not correct. In the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed : "The essence of an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is the obtaining or acceptance, by a public servant, of a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering any service or disservice to him. The first question that requires consideration is, with what motive or as reward for what act, was the sum of Rs. 48/- paid as illegal gratification by the complainant and accepted by the accused." The Supreme Court then found that there could be no occasion at all for demand of bribe by the appellant on the facts of the case. The facts of the present case are quite distinct from the case of Madan Mohan Singh. In the present case it appears that the appellant took the money because a report was to be sent on the application of exchange of holdings. Prima facie, the report was first to be submitted by the Registrar Qanungo and then the Naib Tehslldar. As the appellant demanded money for the report to be sent by the Registrar Qanungo and Naib Tebsildar it appears that he demanded the bribe money on behalf of the Registrar Qanungo and Naib Tehsildar. It is a matter of common experience that ordinarily the senior officers take illegal gratification through their subordinates and that in the illegal gratification the subordinates also take a share. The present case seems to be an instance of such type of cases. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be said that Section 161 IPC is not applicable. (2) Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 666 -In this case S. K. Jain complainant used to manufacture rubber motor parts in his factory at Shahadara. On his application, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking sanctioned a power connection for his factory. The complainant deposited the estimate of expenses. (2) Trilok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 666 -In this case S. K. Jain complainant used to manufacture rubber motor parts in his factory at Shahadara. On his application, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking sanctioned a power connection for his factory. The complainant deposited the estimate of expenses. For a period of 4 months no steps were taken by the employees of the Undertaking to give connection. S. P. Gupta, Inspector of the Undertaking, approached the complainant and solicited a bribe of Rs. 125/-. The complainant did not intend to pay bribe. He contacted Dy. Superintendent of Anti-Corruption Department. The bribe money of Rs. 100/-was actually handed over to Trilok Chand Jain, a permanent labourer working under S. P. Gupta because Trilok Chand Jain represented that he had been sent by Inspector Gupta. Trilok Chand did not know as to why Inspector Gupta wanted the money. It was found that Trilok Chand had absolutely no concern with the matter and as such he could not have taken the bribe money abusing his official position. Trilok Chand was, therefore, acquitted. On facts this case is also of no help to the appellant. In the instant case the records marked to Registrar Qanungo were to be handed over to the appellant. The file of Bedi Lal and Munni Lal was undoubtedly sent to the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant had absolutely no concern in the matter. 19. THE learned counsel for the State has referred to the case of Bhanuprasad Hari Prasad Dave v. THE State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 1323 . In this case a lady teacher Madhukanta handed over a postcard written by Raman Lal requesting her and another lady teacher Chandrakanta to meet him in connection with some work, to the appellant no. 1, a police sub-inspector probably with the request that Raman Lal be pulled up for his conduct. THE sub-inspector called Raman Lal to the police station through a constable (appellant no. 2). THE said sub-inspector abused and slapped Raman Lal and threatened to take action against him. He demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from Raman Lal if he wanted him to hush up the matter. Raman Lal approached Dy. S. P. Anti-Corruption Department. At the bidding of the sub-Inspector the money was given to the constable. THE money was recovered from the constable. He demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from Raman Lal if he wanted him to hush up the matter. Raman Lal approached Dy. S. P. Anti-Corruption Department. At the bidding of the sub-Inspector the money was given to the constable. THE money was recovered from the constable. THE sub-inspector and the constable both were prosecuted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that both the appellants were guilty of both the offences. A question arose before the Supreme Court whether the sub-inspector had committed any offence because he could not have investigated into the matter. THE Supreme Court observed:- "THE question whether there was any offence which the first appellant could have investigated or not is irrelevant for that purpose. If he had used his official position to extract illegal gratification the requirement of the law is satisfied." It may be pointed out that in the case of Trilok Chand Jain (supra) it was observed: "It is true that in law the Incapacity of the government servant to show any favour or render any service in connection with his official duties does not necessarily take the case out of the mischief of these penal provisions. Nevertheless, it is an important factor bearing on the question as to whether the accused had received the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. This question as to whether the government servant receiving the money had the requisite incriminatory motive is one of fact." 20. IN view of the principle laid down in the above case, in the instant case the appellant cannot save his skin by simply showing that the Tahsildar had marked the file to Registran Qanungo. IN this aspect of the matter the appellant is also guilty of the offence punishable under section 161 IPC. No other point was urged by the parties' counsel. 21. THE sentence of 18 months' imprisonment is quite appropriate and cannot be considered severe. 22. IN view of what has been found above there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 161 IPC and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 recorded by the Special Judge Agra are affirmed. 22. IN view of what has been found above there is no merit in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 161 IPC and 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 recorded by the Special Judge Agra are affirmed. The appellant is on bail to which he shall surrender and serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.