JUDGMENT Mr. 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 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to 7 days simple imprisonment on each Count by the Special Judge, Aligarh in criminal case No. 8/9 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, Indian Penal Code to 7 days simple imprisonment by Special Judge, Aligarh for having given bribe to the co-accused Ved Ram (Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 1984). He has also filed Criminal Revision No. 856 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, P.W.1, Inspector Vigilance Sector Kanpur is that on 17.1.78, Sri D.K. Panda, Supdt. of Police, U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Kanpur passed an order, Ex. Ka-1 for the purposes of laying traps. This order of the S.P. Vigilance, Kanpur was notified on 21.1.78 vide Ex. Ka-2. On 24.1.78. P.W. I along with Inspector Nathu Singh, Constable Hajendra Prasad Tewari and Constable Gaya Prasad reached Hathras and enquired about the corruption prevailing there in 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 P.M. the S.D.O./S.D.M. retired to his chamber. The Inspector contacted public men in this connection and one Chaudhary Tej Singh showed his willingness to cooperate. Ved Ram, the peon of the Court, called out the case Sant Lal v. Umrao, at which one person Muran 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 nipees two. Murari Lal told him that he would give one rupee only. Ved Ram replied that until he was paid 2/- he would not inform the next date fixed in the case. Murari Lal asked the amount. At this Ved Ram told him that it were nipees two. Murari Lal told him that he would give one rupee only. Ved Ram replied that until he was paid 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 Murari Lal gave 2/- (Two rupee one notes) P.W. 1 caught hold of the first 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 lest 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. P.W. 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/73298108 and Q/8 218746 come out. The police party went to the adjoining room the 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 116/- were taken out from the pocket and from the pocket of Murari Lal 8/- 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 Ex. I and II. 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 25.1.1978, P.W. 1 gave a report to S.P. Vigilance, Vide Ex. Ka-5. File of the case of Basant v. Umrao is Ex. IV after investigation 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. On 25.1.1978, P.W. 1 gave a report to S.P. Vigilance, Vide Ex. Ka-5. File of the case of Basant v. Umrao is Ex. IV after investigation 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 P.W. 1 Labh Chandra Sharma, Inspector, P.W. 2 Constable Gaya Prasad, P.W. 3 Nathu Singh, Inspector, P.W. 4 Vinod Kumar Mullick, A.D.M. P.W. 5 Shiv Ratan Singh, Head Constable, P.W. 6 Ram Prakash Gupta, LO. and P.W. 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 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He also found the accused Murari Lal guilty under Section 165-A Indian Penal Code 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 revision 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 Indian Penal Code, 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 165A, Indian Penal Code are not satisfied 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 examined by the prosecution, the Presiding Officer retired in his chamber at about 4.15 P.M. on 24th Jan. 1978. 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 a conversation between him and Murari Lal accused. The accused Ved Ram demanded 2/- for telling the date there Murari Lal wanted to pay Rs. 1/- and ultimately when Ved Ram insisted then 2/- Ex.l and Ex. The accused Ved Ram, called out the case Sant Lal v. Umrao with the file and there was a conversation between him and Murari Lal accused. The accused Ved Ram demanded 2/- for telling the date there Murari Lal wanted to pay Rs. 1/- and ultimately when Ved Ram insisted then 2/- Ex.l and Ex. 2 were given by Murari Lal as a consideration forgetting the information about the next date fixed in the case of 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 the 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 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 the exercise of his official functions. On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that Ved Ram had obtained a bribe either for himself or for another, upon a representation that favour would be show 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 Indian Penal Code may constitute the ingredient mensrea. 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 Indian Penal Code was not satisfied in this case. The appellant Ved Ram cannot, therefore, be said to have committed an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. 13. Murari Lal has been convicted under Section 165-A, IPC. This Section makes a provision for punishment for abatement of offenders defined in Section 161 or Section 165 IPC. The appellant Ved Ram cannot, therefore, be said to have committed an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. 13. Murari Lal has been convicted under Section 165-A, IPC. This Section makes a provision for punishment for abatement of offenders defined in Section 161 or Section 165 IPC. It says that whoever, abates any offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165, whether or not that offence is committed and in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with imprisonment or 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 abated an offence punishable under Section 161 or 165 IPC. The co-accused Ved Ram was charged under Section 161 IPC. For the reasons given above, he has not committed an offence under Section 161 IPC. Therefore, the co-accused Murari Lal cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 165-A IPC. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of Murari Lal under Section 165-A Indian Penal Code 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 : "Clause (d):-If he, by corrupt for 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 advantages". The word used in this Clause is "obtains" which means to procure or gain as a result of effect. 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 was fixed in the case by the Court, it was wholly innocuous that a 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 was fixed in the case by the Court, it was wholly innocuous that a tip was either demanded or accepted. It is a common practice that the peons tell the date to the clients after the same 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 conviction 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. 856 of 1984 filed by Murari Lal whose appeal has been allowed and conviction and sentence set aside, has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. 16. Let a copy of the judgment be placed in the record of each of the cases.