JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment dated 24th April, 1984; passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jaipur, in Special Sessions Case No. 29 of 1979. Learned Special Judge has convicted the accused Under Section 165A, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) THE brief facts of the ease are that on 10 -9 -1979 at about 8.30 a.m. the accused went at the residence of the State Minister for Education and submitted an application for appointment and also submitted that for a pretty long time he is facing un -employment, it is very difficult for him to lead with the life. The application has been marked as Ex. P 3. Learned counsel for the accused -appellant has submitted that looking to the circumstances prevalent in the society the applicant attached with the application Rs. 1,000/ - and handed over to the personal secretary, Shri Subhash Khandelwal, of the Minister. The Private Secretary submitted a note to the Hon'ble Minister. The Police was informed a out the matter and the petitioner was arrested on the spot. The notes were seized by the Police. Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently assailed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the evidence is not consistent and there are material contradictions in the evidence.

(3.) IT was also submitted by Mr. Sharma that the appellant has already undergone the sentence. He also submits that in the present time it is very difficult to get employment and people are starving. He also invited my attention to local paper and submitted that about 10 to 15 thousands persons went for 15 posts of the Constable. This is the condition of the society and one wants employment at any cost. He also submitted that the general experience goes to show that the corruption is rampant in the society. The officers do not give appointment generally to the people who do not offer any gratification. If it is so, it cannot be said to be a healthy sign for the society and it will lead to the deterioration of the society. Looking to the young age of the appellant and his future career it was submitted that the appellant should be extended the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,