Illegal gratification includes reward for past service; conviction affirmed, while custodial sentence was reduced to time already undergone.

Receipt of a bribe by a public servant was held to constitute illegal gratification where the evidence showed acceptance of Rs. 30 in connection with the complainant's tender, and the explanation of a taxi-expense payment was rejected as improbable. The Court further held that for Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, "reward" includes payment for a past service rendered by a public servant, not only gratification for a future act. The conviction under Section 161 and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, but the custodial sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in view of the appellant's age, low salary, loss of employment and short custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the receipt of Rs. 30 by the public servant was illegal gratification within Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (ii) Whether the sentence of imprisonment required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the receipt of Rs. 30 by the public servant was illegal gratification within Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis: The evidence established that the appellant accepted Rs. 30 from the complainant in connection with the complainant's tender and not as a mere reimbursement or friendly payment. The explanation that the amount was paid for taxi expenses to go to Nagapattinam was found improbable. The Court also rejected the contention that Section 161 applied only to gratification for future acts, holding that the term "reward" includes payment for a past service rendered by a public servant.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of imprisonment required interference.

Analysis: The appellant was treated leniently in view of his age, meagre salary, loss of employment, and the short period already spent in custody. Those circumstances justified reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, but the custodial sentence was substituted by the period already undergone, leaving the appeal unsuccessful on merits with only limited relief on punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, "reward" includes gratification paid for a past service rendered by a public servant, and such receipt remains punishable as illegal gratification.

---