(1.) The appellant in this case was a clerk in the office of the Running Shed Foreman of the East Indian Railway at Kanpur. He was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months, and also to a fine of Rs. 200. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Sessions Judge on appeal and by the High Court in revision. The charge against the appellant was that on the 6th of January, 1951, he accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 150 from the complainant Kurphekan - a retrenched cleaner in the Locomotive Department of the Railway, examined as P. W. 2 - as a motive for getting him re-employed in the Railway (by arranging with some superior officer). There was an alternative charge under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code but it is no longer necessary to notice it since the conviction is for the main charge under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Police Establishment having received information of the demand of the bribe arranged for a trap and caught the appellant just at the time when he received the sum of Rs. 150 from the complainant and seized the amount. The appellant admitted the receipt of the money but denied that he demanded or accepted it as a bribe. His case was that the complainant had previously borrowed money from him and that this money was paid in discharge of the debt. The courts below have rejected the defence and accepted the prosecution case and conviction followed thereupon.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade us, with reference to the evidence in the case, that the view taken by the Courts below is unsustainable. It is unnecessary to notice this argument in any detail because this is an appeal on special leave and nothing so seriously wrong with the findings of fact have been shown, which call for interference by this Court. It is sufficient to notice the main legal argument that have been advanced.
(3.) It is pointed out that the appellant though employed in the Railway was not himself a person who was in a position to give a job to the complainant nor is it shown that he had any intimacy or influence with any particular official who could give a job. It is urged therefore that the offence, if any, committed by the appellant could only be one of cheating and not the receiving of a bribe. This argument is without any substance. By the terms of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code a person who is a public servant and accepts illegal gratification as a motive for rendering service, with any public servant as such, is guilty of the offence thereunder. To constitute an offence under this section it is enough if the public servant who receives the money takes it by holding out that he will render assistance to the giver "with any other public servant" and the giver gives the money under that belief. It may be that the receiver of the money is in fact not in a position to render such assistance and is even aware of it. He may not even have intended to do what he holds himself out is capable of doing. He may accordingly be guilty of cheating. Nonetheless he is guilty of the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. This is clear from the fourth explanation to Section 161,I. P. C, which is as follows: