SHOUKAT BEG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Shoukat Beg who was a Patwari, has been convicted by the Special Judge, Jhabua by his judgment and sentence dated 22/02/1975 for having committed an offence punishable under S. 5 (l) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1.5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 or in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years on each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High court by its judgment dated 20/07/1977.

(2.) The only contention advanced in the appeal is one of sentence. In a case like the present we agree with the High court that the sentence must be deterrent. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that he as the Patwari received Rs. 4,880. 00 as a motive or reward from certain cultivators whose lands had been acquired by the government for construction of a well under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for helping them to get their cheques encashed from the State Bank, Jhabua. At first he made a demand for payment of half of the compensation amount but later agreed to accept whatever was paid and asked the cultivators to be present at the Bank. After encashment of the cheques the appellant collected various amounts ranging from Rs. 300. 00 to Rs. 900. 00 from each of the landowners and put the money in a white bag. After the money had changed hands, theraiding party reached the spot in a jeep. When he saw the raiding party, the appellant tried to escape but was given a chase. The appellant while running, threw the bag into a well. Eventually, the police officers apprehended him at some distance from the State Bank and the bag was retrieved from the well.

(3.) In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on Bhagwandas Keshwani v. State of Rajasthan pleads for mercy saying that the appellant has gained nothing but suffered loss in many ways. In the first place, the entire amount was recovered by the police party, the appellant had then to undergo a protracted trial for over four years and thereafter was dismissed from service. Furthermore, the learned counsel says that for the last about 10 years the appellant is without a job and reduced to almost penury and has a starving family consisting of his wife and small children and there is no one to look after them. The learned counsel also states that the appellant has already paid the full amount of fine on both the counts.