JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi for applicant, learned Addl. P.P. Ms. V. S.Mhaispurkar for State-Respondent no.1 and learned Counsel Mr. Rajesh Desai for CBI – Respondent no.2. 2. The applicant is one of the accused in Special Case no.52 of 2009 pending in the Court of Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption of Act, Mumbai. Chargesheet has been filed by Central Bureau of Investigation after investigation of FIR no.RC/BA1/2009/A0013. In all there are two accused including the applicant. The applicant has been cited as accused no.2. The other accused by name Sunil Nandlal Shah has been cited as accused no.3. One Income Tax Inspector by name Rahul Kumar was originally cited as accused no.1 when the FIR was registered. However, chargesheet has been filed against the applicant and Accused no.3 Sunil Shah. 3. The allegations against the applicant are based on the complaint made by Smt. Balwant Kaur – resident of Andheri (West), Mumbai. The said Smt. Balwant Kaur had a residential house at Mohali, Chandigarh also. It is stated by her in the complaint that while she was in Chandigarh in the month of November, 2008, she received a call from one Mr. Gaikwad who introduced himself as Income Tax officer and told the complainant that there was a summons against her. The applicant who was looking after the Income Tax matters of the complainant was informed. It is alleged that the applicant after a few days had spoken to the complainant and told her that the matter was serious and that the complainant had to visit Mumbai. The complainant, therefore, reached Mumbai on 26.11.2009 and met the applicant at his residence. She was informed by the applicant that he is following the matter and he will let the complainant know about developments in the case. 4. It is further alleged that the applicant had visited house of the complainant in the month of February and told her that her work would be done and that she would have to pay Rs.10 lakhs by way of bribe. The complainant was shocked to hear that she was required to pay bribe of Rs.10 lakhs. The applicant, however, told her that she might take some time to consider the situation and that the applicant would visit her again. The complainant was shocked to hear that she was required to pay bribe of Rs.10 lakhs. The applicant, however, told her that she might take some time to consider the situation and that the applicant would visit her again. After a few days, during a similar visit, the applicant had allegedly told the complainant that the amount of bribe could be reduced by Rs.5 lakhs and that the complainant would have to pay Rs.1 lakh to the applicant by way of service charges. She was also informed that the co-accused Sunil Shah was very closed to the Income Tax Officer and that he would be able to resolve the whole issue. Since the complainant did not want to pay bribe amount, she had given information to CBI and CBI had made arrangement for recording of talks between the complainant and the applicant during next few visits. The FIR was registered on 26.2.2009 itself when the matter was reported to CBI by the complainant in writing. 5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicant and the other accused by name Sunil Shah. Both of them had made applications for discharge before the Trial Court independently. Both the applications were rejected. Accused Sunil Shah moved this Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. By order dated 4.10.2012 this Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) directed that accused Sunil Shah be discharged of the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court on the application of Mr. Sunil Shah, the present applicant deserves to be discharged as the allegations against both of them are more or less same. It was further submitted that in fact the allegations against the accused – Sunil Shah were grievous as compared to the allegations against the present applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi further submitted that a plain reading of complaint does not disclose that the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further submitted that in fact the allegations against the accused – Sunil Shah were grievous as compared to the allegations against the present applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi further submitted that a plain reading of complaint does not disclose that the applicant has committed offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the complaint clearly demonstrated that no work was pending with the Income Tax Department which was to be done by the officer Rahul Kumar and therefore, question of bribing Rahul Kumar by either the applicant or Sunil Shah did not arise. It is also submitted that at the most the allegations made in the complaint to CBI by the complainant would amount to offence of extortion and not offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. Learned Special P.P. Mr. Desai appearing on behalf of CBI has submitted that the complainant has clearly stated that she was told by the applicant that if the bribe amount was not paid the file which had been closed will be reopened and that she might come in trouble. It is submitted that as such an attempt was made by the applicant to take money from the complainant by way of bribe money. 8. It was also submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi that Mr. Rahul Kumar has not been cited as witness nor his statement has been recorded. It is contended that in the absence of evidence of Mr. Rahul Kumar, it will not be possible for the prosecution/CBI to establish the charge under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant. 9. My attention was invited to the order passed by this Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) on 4th October,2012 in Criminal Revision Application no.3 of 2011. The accused no.3 Sunil Nandlal Shah was directed to be discharged of the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act by the said order. Learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi has submitted that the applicant is situated similarly and that, in fact, the case of the applicant is better than the case of accused no.3. Learned Counsel Mr. The accused no.3 Sunil Nandlal Shah was directed to be discharged of the offence punishable under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act by the said order. Learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi has submitted that the applicant is situated similarly and that, in fact, the case of the applicant is better than the case of accused no.3. Learned Counsel Mr. Saraogi has placed reliance on a portion of paragraph 3 of the said order which runs as under:- “Reading entire text of complainant's version, there is no direct demand or attempt to obtain any amount from her under the guise of remitting the same to Rahul Kumar. The Applicant was not attending case of the complainant which was already closed by the Income tax officer.” 10. A vital question which may arise for consideration is that is it necessary for the prosecution under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act to establish that the public servant was in fact bribed or attempted to be bribed. 11. In my opinion, Section 8 of the Act is meant for prosecuting the persons who collect money under the pretext that they would bribe a public servant. It is not necessary in a case under Section 8 of the Act for the prosecution to establish that a public servant was in fact bribed or an attempt was made to bribe a public servant. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of Kerala High Court reported at “1988 Cri.L.J. 1005, (Devan alias Vasudevan & etc. Vs. The State)”. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment runs as under:- “7. Shri Ratna Singh, learned counsel for one of the appellants contended that even if the entire evidence is accepted, it is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 162 of the I.P.C. since there is no evidence to show as to what the accused did to Lt. Col. Krishnaiah. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment runs as under:- “7. Shri Ratna Singh, learned counsel for one of the appellants contended that even if the entire evidence is accepted, it is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 162 of the I.P.C. since there is no evidence to show as to what the accused did to Lt. Col. Krishnaiah. In order to analyse the said contention, the section is extracted below : "Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant :Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant to do or to render any service or disservice to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in S. 21, or with any public servant, as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." The ingredients of the offence are (a) The accused should accept or agree to accept (or even attempt to obtain) gratification from some one. (b) The gratification is for himself or for some one else, (c) It is a motive or reward to induce a public servant by corrupt or illegal means to do or to forbear to do any official act or to show favour or disfavour to some person etc. The gravamen of the offence is acceptance of or the obtaining or even the attempt to obtain illegal gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. It is not necessary that the person who received the gratification should have succeeded in inducing the public servant. It is not even necessary that the recipient of the gratification should, in fact, have attempted to induce the public servant. The receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt or illegal means will complete the offence. It is not even necessary that the recipient of the gratification should, in fact, have attempted to induce the public servant. The receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt or illegal means will complete the offence. But it is necessary that the accused should have had the animus or intent, at the time when he receives gratification that it is received as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. Such intention can be gathered or inferred from evidence in each case. A scrutiny of the evidence shows that the offence stands established even without showing that the accused in fact induced or attempted to induce Lt. Col. Krishnaiah to do anything. Therefore the non-examination of Krishnaiah is of no consequence in this case.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. As such in the present case also there is no material to show that the applicant had bribed or had attempted to bribe Rahul Kumar. However, that is not necessary for the prosecution to establish the charge under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The money has been attempted to be taken from the complainant as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt or illegal means. This will complete the offence. I am in respectful disagreement with the learned Judge's observations in his order dated 4.10.2012 in Criminal Revision Application no.3 of 2011. I am of the view that the application for discharge has rightly been rejected by the learned Special Judge. The present revision application is, therefore, dismissed. 13. At this stage learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Saraogi prays for stay on this order for a period of four weeks. I do not find any substance in the prayer. It is rejected.