AJUDHIA PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajudhia Prasad Dhobi has appealed from his conviction under Section 161 read with Section 116, I.P.C., 111. (a) to Section 116 says: A offers a bribe to B a public servant as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of his official function. B refuses to accept the bribe. A is punishable under this section.

(2.) The Dhobi is not the actual A but he introduced the bribe giver to the Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqvi. Mr. Naqvi heard from a female servant what Ajudhia intended and made preparation to receive Ajudhia and the principal person Narain Das, who desired that the Assistant Superintendent of Police should use favour in the exercise of his official functions. The favour desired by Narain Das was that his brother's name may be removed from Register No. 8 of bad characters of the Jhansi Police-Station. There can be no doubt that Ajudhia and Narain Das appeared before the officer and offered a bribe which was not accepted. Learned counsal here has argued that the Assistant Superintendent was not in charge of this particular Register and in the exercise of his official function could not remove the name of any person from that register. The official therefore was not in a position to show favour to Narain Das and that, therefore, if the official had accepted the money he would not have been guilty of accepting a bribe and for that reason the bribe giver could not be guilty under the provisions of Section 116, I.P.C. In support of this view a ruling of the Madras High Court in In re Venkiah A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 851 was quoted, of which the head-note is; In a charge under Section 161 it must be shown that the accused took the bribe or a motive for doing an official act, that the charge against the Karnam was that he received a bribe from a villager on the understanding that he would gat him some darkhast land. It doesnot constitute ah ofience under Section 161 as getting darkhast is not the official act of a karnam.

(3.) With all respect, in my opinion, the learned Judge appears to have overlooked 111 (c) to Section 161 to which no reference is made in the judgment. That illustration is: A a public servant induced Z erroneously to believe that A's influence with the Government has obtained a title for Z and thus induced Z to give A money as a reward for this service. A has committed the offence defined in this section.