JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment where by Govind Lal, the accused appellant, was convicted and sentenced as under: under Section 161# IPC. - 3 months' SI with fine of Rs. 100/- in default# one month's SI under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. - 1 year's S.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- in default, two month's S.I. 2. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Govindlal, the appellant, a peon employed in the court of the City Magistrate, Kota, on March 13, 1974, was charged with the offences punishable under Section 161, IPC, and 5(2) reed with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the alleged acceptance of Rs. 15/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from one Arjun Lal Kapoor on March 13, 1974. The facts giving rise to this litigation are that, the decoy-Arjunlal was challaned by one Shop-Inspector, Kota for the offences under the Shop Act on November 7, 1973 before the City Magistrate, Kota and the process was issued for the attendance in that court for March 15, 1947. The accused prior to that date reached the decoy and informed him that if the latter paid Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- to him as illegal gratification for being used by him and the Reader of the Court, the letter would allow acquittal in the proceedings initiated by the shop Inspector in the court of the City Magistrate Kota. The decoy at that time avoided the payment and later on approached the anti-corruption department to get the accused entrapped. Then, the trap followed. 4. It is not in dispute before this Court that on March 19, 1947, Rs. 15/- were recovered from the accused-appellant and this amount was given by the decoy. On March 13, 1947, the decoy lodged complaint and presented to the Addl. S.P. (ACD) three CC notes of the denomination of Rs. 5/- each. The Addl. S.P. initialled the said CC notes and dusted them with pheonlphthalein powder and then handed them back to the decoy for onward transmission to the accused on latter's demand. In the premises of the City Magistrate, Kota, this amount was given tot he accused-appellant, as bribe. This was witnessed by the Addl. S.P., G.P. Nag, motbirs, namely, Mahavir Singh and Abdul Hanif. 5. The accused-appellant admitted the receipt of Rs. In the premises of the City Magistrate, Kota, this amount was given tot he accused-appellant, as bribe. This was witnessed by the Addl. S.P., G.P. Nag, motbirs, namely, Mahavir Singh and Abdul Hanif. 5. The accused-appellant admitted the receipt of Rs. 15/-from the decoy, and on chemical test, it has been found that the hands of the accused when washed in the water resulted in colour change. 6. So far as the evidence is concerned, since the accused himself, has admitted to have received Rs. 15/- the burden is on him now to show that it was not as a bribe. 7. In State of Rajasthan v. M. Sahib, 1973 Cr. LJ 703 , this Court observed that the essence of the offence consists in making a representation that an official act would be preferred or a favour or disfavour would be shown and not in actually performing that act or actually showing favour or disfavour and consequently when the complainant agreed to give bribe to the accused the latter in the circumstances will be said to have received it as a motive or reward for doing an official act or showing favour in the exercise of his official functions, within the meaning of the words as used in the section. Further it was observed as under: "Besides that, it may be pointed out that Section 161 of the Code does not require that the public servant must in fact be in a position to do the official act, favour or service at the time nor the State of the mind of the person, who offers gratification has any thing to do with the public servant to whom the illegal gratification is offered would be in a position to do that act for doing which the amount is offered to him. 8. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan., 1975 Cr. 8. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan., 1975 Cr. LJ 1224 observed that before raising a rebuttable presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the three main ingredients of Section 161, Indian Penal Code must necessarily be proved by the prosecution, one that, the accused was a public servant, the other that, he must be shown to have obtained from any person gratification other than legal and, the last, that such acceptance was made as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do official act in the discharge of accused's official function for showing favour, or disfavour to the decoy. 9. In the present case, though, Mahavir Singh has tried to resile from the earlier version it is not significant. The trial court has placed reliance upon the statement of the decoy who was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and whose credibility could not be shaken. A complaint was filed before the City Magistrate, Kota, under the shop Act against the decoy, the process was issued on that complaint, for the appearance in that court for March 13, 1974, i.e. the day of the trap and the accused was undoubtedly peon in that court. 10. The complaint (Ex. P 1) stands fully corroborated by the statement of (he decoy in the court. The acceptance of Rs. 15/- by the accused from the decoy is undoubtedly true. A presumption can be raised under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to hold that the amount accepted by the accused-appellant was in all probability a gratification other than legal remuneration. This presumption can be rebutted by proving defence version or that he accepted the amount innocently. 11. In the present case, the learned Counsel argued that the accused was only a peon and he could not manage any acquittal of the decoy. I am unable to accept this contention because, whether one can manage the acquittal or not, is not connected with the status of the accused. Even if he could not manage the acquittal but he bluffed the litigant and the decoy for taking bribe, the offence cannot be mitigated. The story of the defence that this amount was part price of the time piece watch which was purchased by the decoy from the accused prior to the trap for Rs. Even if he could not manage the acquittal but he bluffed the litigant and the decoy for taking bribe, the offence cannot be mitigated. The story of the defence that this amount was part price of the time piece watch which was purchased by the decoy from the accused prior to the trap for Rs. 20/-, is difficult to be accepted and even it is not plausible or probable. The story of purchase of watch is discrepant as the evidence of Vinod Chand (PW 3) and the suggestion made to Mahavir Singh is for Rs. 40/-. Abdul Hanif (PW 5) stated that the accused told the Additional S.P. that the accused purchased the time place or watch and the amount was accepted by him as return price of the watch. The trial court has commented that this witness even went to the extent of saying that he does not know Hindi even though signed the memo in Hindi. 12. The learned Counsel pointed out that there is evidence to support the defence version. 13. Ramdayal Saxena (DW 1) stated that the accused-appellant purchased watch (Article 6), which was produced in the court for the first time, for Rs. 20/- in his presence but he stated further that no receipt was taken for such a watch or time piece. This statement cannot inspire confidence. Chand Mohd. (PW 2) stated that the accused was requested by the decoy to return the watch and take the money in his presence. The story given by this witness that it had happened when he was purchasing the shoe for his son along with Chand Mohd, the decoy called him to his shop and promised to take back the watch and to return the amount on March 13, 1974, is contrary to this version of the accused that the decoy himself came to the shoe seller's shop and requested him to take back the amount and return the watch. It clearly shows that this witness (DW 2) has given a concocted version. Sri Krishna (DW 3) is the peon in the Labour Court, Kota. Chandra Prakash (DW 4) is the Patwari. The version that Rs. 15/- were paid with the return of the watch has been rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 14. In fact, on a careful scrutiny of the entire defence version it appears that the defence theory that Rs. Chandra Prakash (DW 4) is the Patwari. The version that Rs. 15/- were paid with the return of the watch has been rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 14. In fact, on a careful scrutiny of the entire defence version it appears that the defence theory that Rs. 15/- were paid on account of the return of the watch, appears to be a cock and bull story and is not believable. 15. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the presumption has not been rebutted, 16. Learned Counsel therefore, assailed the sanction on the ground that it was issued in a mechanical manner. Nothing has been shown from the Anil Kumar's statement (PW 2) the Collector, Kota, to substantiate that he acted in a mechanical manner. The Collector (PW 2) has categorically stated that he was satisfied that a prima facie case against the appellant-accused was made out and then he put the signatures on the sanction. 17. It is true that the accused is a low paid employee and it is also true that the prosecution agency of the Prevention of Corruption Act mostly brings the cases of petty employees for petty amount but, on account of that, no holiday can be given for acceptance of bribe. I am, therefore, convinced that the defence of the accused-appellant that the amount taken by him was not as bribe, is neither plausible nor probable, and the presumption has not been rebutted. 18. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and the sentence recorded against the accused-appellant by the trial court vide judgment dated 27th February, 1976, for the offences under Section 161, IPC, and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are confirmed and upheld. The appellant is on bail. The trial court, after forfeiture of the bail bonds, would take steps to get the accused-appellant arrested and send him to jail to undergo the sentences awarded by the trial court and as upheld by this Court.Appeal dismissed. *******