Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.
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 & 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. I have gone through the evidence and I do not find any material contradiction in the evidence. 1 do not find any force in this appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. The conviction of the accused-appellant is maintained.
4. 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,
5. A person who is starving generally adopts any mode for his survival and in such cases, the Court should consider the reformatory mode of penalogy. In this case, the accused was un-employed for a pretty long time. He was going door to door for employment & was inviting the attention of the society but he could not find any opportunity of employment to lead his peaceful life. It is necessary that the person should not be allowed to die in future because of starvation but he should be given an opportunity to reform himself. If the sentence is maintained the accused appellant will not get employment any where. So, I consider it a proper case in which the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 should be extended. As well as provisions of Section 360 Cr.PC should be applied wherever, there is cause of the society. In the instant case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I maintain the conviction of the accused appellant and set aside the sentence passed against him and direct that the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 19.58, may be extended in his favour. The appellant has remained behind the bars for a pretty long time. I consider it proper that the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should be extended in favour of the accused. Instead of sentencing the appellant at once, I consider that he may be released on entering into a bond of Rs. 5,000/- with or without sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so, during a period of three months and be of good behaviour. The accused appellant shall furnish the bonds within a period of three months. The accused appellant shall be entitled to get the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.