The offer of a bribe to a public servant with the intention of influencing him to do or refrain from doing any official act constitutes an offence under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, even if the public servant is not in a position to actually do or show any favor.

R. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years.

( 2 ) P. W. 1 Japa Kissore Mohanty is a junior Sub Inspector of Police attached to jagatsingpur Police Station in the District of Cuttack. Sometime in January 1964 he had gone to investigate a case lodged ill the instance of Kartik Satpathy, in case No. 1 of 1964, accnmanicd by some of his constables. While investigating that case, it is said, that at the instance of the present appellant some other accused persons, including Radhu Mallik and Babaji Mallik assaulted P. W. 1 and the constables. Accordingly P W 1 started a case against the appellant and ten others (Jagatsinghpur Police Case No. 4/64 ). The accused persons in this case filed an application under Section 494, Cr P. C. , before the district Magistrate. Cuttack, for withdrawal of the said case. The Additional District Magistrate who considered this petition (Cr. Misc. Case No. 23/64-Ext. 2), on 21-4-1964 called for the opinion of the Superintendent of Police regarding withdrawal of this case and adjourned the case to 18-5-1964 for the purpose. The Superintendent of Police in his turn by a letter dated 27-4-1964 (Ext. 6) asked for a report from the sub-inspector of Police, Jagatsingpur, whether the case can be withdrawn. After this letter, Ext. 6, reached the Jagatsingpur Police station, it is alleged by the prosecution, the appellant in order to get a favourable report offered P. W. 1 a sum of Rs. 150 by way of illegal gratification and made him liable under Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE prosecution story is that on 6-5 1961 at about 4-30 p. m. while P. W. 1 was busy in his work at the Police Station, the appellant along with some other accused persons in P. S. Case No. 4/64, such as Radhu Mallik. Aparti Mallik etc. , came to the police station and called P. W. 1 outside of his room and told him that, they had filed an application for withdrawal of the case on which a report had been called for by the Supdt. of Police, The appellant then requested P. W. 1 to give a favourable report so that the case can be withdrawn. He asked the other accused persons who were then present there to beg apology of P. W 1 as a result of which the other accused persons prostrated themselves before the feet of P. W. 1 The appellant also asked to be excused. P W 1 denied knowledge of any such letter having been received at the police station, and so saying he came back to his seat and resumed his work. Shortly after the appellant again came and requested P. W. 1 to handover the report to him personally so that, he would expedite the decision in the office of the supdt. of Police and so saying he thrust a bundle of G. C. notes into the hand of P. W 1. P. W. 1 then caught hold of the appellant, and when he wanted to slip away from his grip, he caught hold of his Dhoti and raised a hue and cry and soon overpowered him brought him before the officer in charge. P. W. 3 and lodged Ext. 1, narrating the incident. P. W. 10. the Inspector of Police was authorised to investigate the case (Police case No. 90/64) and after completion of the investigation the appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 165-A, I. P C. , and was tried by the Special Judge, Cut tack, who convicted and sentenced him as hereinbefore stated.

( 4 ) AT the trial the plea of the accused was one of a denial. His case was that he had been to Jagatsingpur Sub-Registrar's office on 5-5-1964 with a view to get a sale deed registered by Kalpataru Mohanty (D. W 2) in his favour for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 150. After the document was scribed, it could not be presented for registration on that day as the office was being held in morning and the Sub-Registrar had left his office by the time the document was made ready. So he, Kalpataru, the scribe of the document, Harihar Singh, D. W. 1 and the attesting witness Radhakrishna Satpathy (D. W. 3) and sever