4-decade trial over Rs 20,000: Court reduces 75-year-old ex-sarpanch’s jail time in 1987 corruption case

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the sentence should be approached from a reformative perspective.

The high court was hearing the appeal filed by Khageswar Sa, challenging the judgment of conviction order passed by the trial court on August 18, 2000, where he was found guilty of the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

‘Advanced age, extraordinarily long prosecution’

• The high court took note of the fact that the man had faced the ordeal of criminal prosecution for an extraordinarily long period.
• He had remained under the “shadow” of criminal proceedings for nearly four decades.
• The court, considering the advanced age of the man, the long lapse of time since the occurrence and the absence of any material indicating criminal antecedents, held that the sentence should be approached from a reformative rather than a purely punitive perspective.
• The bench held it would be just and proper to sentence the man to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The high court further reduced the sentence imposed on the sarpanch to simple imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs 25,000 for the offence under the IPC to ensure that the punitive element of the sentence is not rendered illusory.

Corruption in 1987

• The prosecution case, as revealed in the First Information Report (FIR), was that during the course of a vigilance enquiry, it was ascertained that Khageswar Sa was serving as the sarpanch and another accused, Kautuka Behera, as the secretary of Sardhapali gram panchayat in Sambalpur district.
• It was alleged that on May 26, 1987, both the sarpanch and the secretary withdrew a sum of Rs 5,000 from the bank account and, thereafter, on May 28, 1987, withdrew another sum of Rs 15,000 from the said account for the purpose of depositing the same in the co-operative bank at Padampur.
• The sarpanch allegedly retained the amount, along with the passbook. It was alleged that though the withdrawals were duly reflected in the cash book of the gram panchayat, the amount was neither deposited in the cooperative bank nor in any other bank and was allegedly misappropriated.
• The misappropriation came to light during the audit conducted on July 8, 1987.
• It was further alleged that the sarpanch had separately received Rs 500 from a panchayat peon towards the grant of fishing rights in a panchayat tank, but failed to deposit the amount into the panchayat fund.

Probe, FIR

Following a vigilance enquiry, an FIR was registered on December 1, 1987, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for alleged misappropriation of a total sum of Rs 20,500 belonging to the panchayat.

Subsequently, in August 2000, the trial court convicted Khageswar Sa under the Prevention of Corruption Act and provisions of the IPC, sentencing him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment on each count. However, co-accused panchayat secretary Kautuka Behera was acquitted.

Aggrieved by the same, the former sarpanch Khageswar Sa approached the Orissa High Court challenging the conviction and sentence order of the trial court.

Arguments

Representing the ex-sarpanch, Senior Advocate D P Dhal confined his submissions principally to the question of quantum of sentence without entering into the merits of the conviction.

It was submitted that the alleged occurrence pertained to the year 1987 and that his client, who was about 30 years of age at the relevant point in time, is presently more than 75 years old. It was further contended that, having regard to the advanced age of the man, a lenient view may also be taken while imposing sentence for the offence punishable under the IPC.

It was submitted that the man had already undergone considerable mental agony and hardship during the pendency of the proceedings, and therefore, the ends of justice would be adequately met by awarding a reduced sentence.

The state was represented by Additional Standing Counsel, M S Rizvi, who opposed the plea.