to be transacted by such Public Servant or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate; or (b) From any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, Shall be punished with Imprisonment for a Term which may extend to Five Years or with Fine or with both. Under this Count, the Prosecution is required to strictly prove the following: 1) That the Defendant is a Public Servant; 2) That he has accepted, or obtained, or has agreed to accept or has attempted to obtain for himself or for someone else, a Valuable thing. This Valuable thing, could include any Valuable Consideration of any kind, Discount, Commission, Rebate, Bonus, Deduction Or Percentage; That he gave no Consideration for it or gave an Inadequate 3) Consideration. 4) That the Person from whom the Present was received was known to the Defendant to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in the transaction of public business with him or his subordinate, [or that the person from whom the present was received was known by the Defendant to be related to a person having been concerned or likely to be concerned in transacting public business with the Defendant]. It is clear that this Section is wider than Section 115 and makes punishable the Mere Taking of Presents by a Public Servant, when it cannot be proved that the Presents were taken corruptly. The question of the Motive or Reward of the Giver of the Present is not material. The Public Servant must have taken the Present without any Consideration or for Inadequate Consideration in connection with his Official Functions as a Public Servant, but this Offence does not affect Gifts, obtained at a fair price from relatives and friends, unconnected with his Official Duties as a Public Servant. Learned Counsel representing the Defence had contended that there were Material Contradictions in the evidence of the Prosecution that entitled the 260