JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has been convicted of attempting to obtain for himself some gratification other than legal remuneration as motive or reward for doing an official act and has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. A rule was issued by this Court to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that the facts found in the judgment do not constitute an attempt to commit an offence under sec. 161, I. P. C, and also to show cause why the sentence should not be modified.

2. The Petitioner was a Civil Court peon and as such he had to serve summons on the witnesses in a suit instituted by the firm in which the complainant was the head gomosta. He asked the complainant to pay him dusturi, if he wished him to serve the summons without an indentifier : and this is the act for doing which he has been convicted.

3. It is urged on his behalf that the facts found do not constitute an attempt to obtain the dusturi. With this argument we are unable to agree. It appears to us that the attempt was complete when the demand was made; there was nothing further for the Petitioner to complete his attempt. He made the request and it lay with the person from whom he demanded the money to comply with the request or not. We are in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Pearson in Empress of India v. Baldeo Sahai I. L. R. 2 All. 253 (1879), where that learned Judge lays down that to ask for a bribe is an attempt: to obtain one.

4. The learned pleader who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner quoted several eases to show what is an attempt and what is not. We need not refer to these in detail. We may take the ease of the woman who was convicted of having attempted to commit suicide reported in Queen-Empress v. Ramakka (2). In this case the woman had run towards a well with the intention of jumping down it. Here it was held that there was no attempt to commit suicide; and the reason is obvious. The mere running would not put an end to her life; there was some further act to be done, namely, jumping down the well, before the attempt would be completed. In the case before us, there was nothing further for the Petitioner to do; he made the request, and as we have said, whether he received the gratification or not, did not depend on himself, but on the person from whom it was demanded.

5. As regards the sentence, we are of opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, it is not too severe. The Petitioner not only demanded the reward, but refused to serve the summons if it were not paid and also used abusive language towards the complainant. We accordingly see no reason to interfere. The rule is discharged. The Petitioner must be called on to surrender and to serve the remainder of the sentence.