VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

194 DECISION - 2
The High Court further held that no favour need be shown to
the bribe-giver, Sarda in his suit. It would be sufficient if the bribegiver
was led to believe that the case would go against him if he did
not give the Judge, accused, a present and the evidence tends to
show that this is what happend.
(2)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 7
(B) Trap — motive or reward
It is an offence even when the act done for the
bribe giver, is a just and proper one.
Anant Wasudeo Chandekar vs. Emperor,
AIR 1925 NAG 313
The appellant, an ex-Tahsildar and 2nd Class Magistrate,
Jalgaon, in the Buldana District, has been convicted of an offence
under sec. 161 IPC (corresponding to sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988) and
sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6000,
on a charge of accepting Rs.1000 as illegal gratification as a motive
for forbearing to do an official act viz. in order to show favour in the
discharge of his judicial functions in a criminal case pending on his
file.
The Judicial Commissioner’s Court, Nagpur held that when a
bribe has been proved to have been given, it is not necessary to ask
what, if any, effect the bribe had on the mind of the receiver and it is an
offence even when the act, done for the bribe giver, is a just and proper
one. The gist of the offence is a public servant taking gratification
other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
(3)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 7
(B) Trap — motive or reward
Erroneous representation by the public servant that the
act is within official duty, still the act comes within ambit
of sec. 161 IPC (corresponding to sec.7 P.C.Act, 1988).