P. P. GUPTA, J. These are three connected cases filed by Ved Ram and Murari Lal. 2. The appellant Ved Ram, who was peon in the court of S. D. M. , Hathras has been convicted under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to 7 days simple im prisonment on each count by the Special Judge, Aligarh in Original case No. 6/9 of 1980 - State v. Ved Ram, Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 1984 ). 3. The appellant, Murari Lal, who was a public man has been convicted under Section 165-A, I. P. C to 7 days simple imprisonment by Special Judge, Aligarh for giving bribe to the co-accused Ved Ram (Criminal Appeal No, 1137 of 1984 ). He has also filed Criminal Revision No. 656 of 1984 against the same order dated 3-4-1984 passed by Special Judge, Aligarh. 4. The case of the prosecution as narrated by Labh Chandra Sharma, PW I, Inspector Vigilance Sector, Kanpur is that on 17-1-78 Sri D. K. Pande, Supdt. of Police, U. P. Vigilance, Establishment, Kanpur passed an order, Ex. Ka-1, for the purpose of laying traps. This order of the S. P. Vigilance Kan pur was notified on 31-1-76 vide Ex. Ka-3. On 24-1-1978 PW 1 along with Inspector Nathu Singh, Constable Rajendra Prasad Tewari and Constable Gaya Prasad reached Hathras and enquired about the corruption prevailing therein the courts of S. D. M. etc. and came to know that there was wide spread corruption in the courts amongst the peons and the Readers. Thereafter the police party reached the courts and found such activities there. That day at about 4-15 p. m. the S. D. O. /s. D. M. retired to his chamber. The Inspector con tained public men in this connection and one Chaudhary Raj Singh showed his willingness to co- operate. Ved Ram, the peon of the Court, called out the -case Sant Lal v. Umrav, at which one person Murari Lal accused approached Ved Ram and enquired about the date fixed in that case. Ved Ram informed him that first he should give him some money and only then he would tell the date. Murari Lal, asked the amount. At this Ved Ram told him that it were rupees two. Murari Lal told him that he would give one rupee only. Ved Ram informed him that first he should give him some money and only then he would tell the date. Murari Lal, asked the amount. At this Ved Ram told him that it were rupees two. Murari Lal told him that he would give one rupee only. Ved Ram replied that until he was paid Rs. 2 he would not inform the next date fixed in the case. This conversation was being heard by the police party, in plain clothes, inside the court room. When Muran Lal gave Rs. 2 (Two rupee) one note PW 1 caught hold of the fist of Ved Ram containing two rupees, simultaneously giving the introduction of his party. He then took Ved Ram to the chamber of the S. D. O. holding firmly his fist lost the two notes may not drop down from the hand of Ved Ram. Murari Lal was also arrested by the Police Officer, Nathu Singh, Radha Raman, the Reader of the Court, had gone to the chamber of the S. D. M. prior to this, PW 1 gave the details of the occurrence to Sri V. K. Malik, the S. D. O. / S. D. M. , Hathras and opened the fist of Ved Ram from which currency notes No. A/73293106 and O/8318746 came out. The police party went to the adjoining room to evade crowd for the purposes of completing formalities of recovery and arrest. The recovered currency notes were sealed and a memo was prepared. On a search of Ved Ram Rs. 116 were taken out from the pocket and from the pocket of Murari Lal, Rs. 86 were found. The file of the case Sant Lal v. Umrao was also taken into possession. The memo was read over and was signed by all concerned present and copies were given to the accused. The memo is Ex. Ka-3, Currency notes are Ext. Ka-1 and 2. The envelope in which notes were kept is Ex. 3. Thereafter recovered articles etc and the accused were taken to the police station, where F. I. R. was lodged and a case was registered. On 25-1-78, PW 1 gave a report to S. P. Vigilance, vide Ex. Kha-5. File of the case of Basant v. Umrao is Ex. Kha-lv. After investi gation and necessary formalities of sanction etc. charge sheets were submitted against both the accused. 5. On 25-1-78, PW 1 gave a report to S. P. Vigilance, vide Ex. Kha-5. File of the case of Basant v. Umrao is Ex. Kha-lv. After investi gation and necessary formalities of sanction etc. charge sheets were submitted against both the accused. 5. Both the accused did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 Labh Chandra Sharma, Inspector, PW 2 Constable Gaya Prasad, PW 3 Nathu Singh, Inspector, PW 4 Vinod Kumar Mullick S. D. M. , PW 5 Shiv Ratan Singh, Head Constable, PW 6 Ram Prakash Gupta, I. O. and PW 7 Deoki Nandan Sharma, Investigating Officer. 7. On an assessment of the entire evidence, the learned Special Judge found Ved Ram guilty of the offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and also under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He also found the accused Murari Lal guilty under Section 165-A, I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced them as above. 8 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the learned Special Judge, both the accused Ved Ram and Murari Lal have filed appeals and revi sion before this court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate were heard at length and the record of the case was perused. 10. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the ingredients of the offence under Section 161, I. P. C. , Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section and 165-A, I. P. C. are not established even if all the facts are admitted. 11. It is not disputed that accused Ved Ram, who was working as a peon in the Court of S D. M. , Hathras on the date of occurrence was a public servant as defined under the Code. According to the eye- witnesses obtained by the prosecution, the presiding officer retired in his chamber at about 4. 15 p. m. on 21st January 1979. The reader was also inside the chamber of the presiding officer. The accused Ved Ram, called out the case Sant Lal v. Umrao with the file and there was conversation between him and Murari Lal accused. The accused Ved Ram demanded Rs. 2 for telling the date when Murari lal attempted to pay Rs. 2 and obtained when Ved Ram insisted then Rs. The accused Ved Ram, called out the case Sant Lal v. Umrao with the file and there was conversation between him and Murari Lal accused. The accused Ved Ram demanded Rs. 2 for telling the date when Murari lal attempted to pay Rs. 2 and obtained when Ved Ram insisted then Rs. 2 Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were given by Murari Lal as a consideration for getting the informa tion about the next date fixed in the case Basant Lal v. Umrao. Murari Lal is the son of Basant Lal who was ill on that date. 12. It has not been disputed that it was not duty of Ved Ram either to keep the file with him or to maintain it. It was also not within his power to give a date in the case. Admittedly, the date had already been given and noted in the file. He simply disclosed the date to Murari Lal, for which he accepted Rs. 2 from him. This disclosure of the date to Murari Lal was not an official act of Ved Ram. He did not disclose the date to Murari Lal in exercise of his official functions. On these facts of the case it cannot be said that Ved Ram had obtained a bribe either for himself or for another, upon a repre sentation that favour would be shown to Murari Lal in the discharge of his official function. The words "as a motive or reward for doing or for dealing to show in exercise of his official function" used in Section 161, I. P. C. may constitute the ingredient mens rea. Ved Ram cannot be said to have received the money by holding that he will render assistance to Murari lal with any other public servant. As such the essential ingredient of Section 161, I. P. C. was not satisfied in this case. The appellant Ved Ram cannot, therefore, be said to have committed an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. 13. As such the essential ingredient of Section 161, I. P. C. was not satisfied in this case. The appellant Ved Ram cannot, therefore, be said to have committed an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. 13. Murari Lal has been convicted under Section 165-A, I. P. C. This section makes a provision for punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 161 or Section 165-A, I. P. C. It says that whoever, abets an offence punishable under Section 161 or 165-A, whether or not that offence is committed and in consequences of the abetment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Murari Lal can be convicted under this section only if it is proved that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 161 or 165-A, I. P. C. The co-accused Ved Ram was charged under Section 161, I. P. C. For the reasons given above, he has not committed an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. Therefore, the co- accused Murari Lal cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 165-A, I. P. C. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of Murari lal under Section 165-A, I. P. C. must be set aside. 14. It was argued on behalf of the State that an offence has been made out under clause (d) of Section 5 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Clause (d) runs 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 other valuable thing or pecuniary advantage". The word in this clause is "obtains" which means to procure or gain as a result of effort. Moreover, in order to constitute an offence this obtaining must be by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant. In this case, the obtaining of money by Ved Ram was not by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant as has already been discussed above. It appears that a small tip was given to Murari lal by Ved Ram after ascertaining the date fixed in the case. After the date fixed in the case by the Court, it was wholly, (sic) that tip was either demanded or accepted. It appears that a small tip was given to Murari lal by Ved Ram after ascertaining the date fixed in the case. After the date fixed in the case by the Court, it was wholly, (sic) that tip was either demanded or accepted. It is a common practice that the peons tell at the date to the clients after the case is fixed by the court and noted down by the Reader in the order sheet. If Ved Ram accepted this money from Murari Lal, it cannot be said that he corruptly obtained this money. In my opinion the facts in this case do not bring the case, within the purview of clause (d) of Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused Ved Ram is, therefore, not guilty of the offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act also. 15. For the reasons given above, both the appeals of Ved Ram and Murari lal are allowed and their convictions and sentences are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The Revision No. 656 of 1984 filed by Murari lal whose appeal has been allowed and conviction and sentence set aside, has be come infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment be placed, in the record of each of the cases. Appeal and Revision allowed. .