E.M. Narayanaswami vs T.V. Chinnathambi and another

Kailasam, J.—This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records order of the Election Court, District Munsif of

Tiruchirapalli, with its connected records, and to quash the same. The petitioner filed his nomination for election to the panchayat on 31st January

1965 for the second ward, a three member constituency in Madhakudi panchayat. Along with the petitioner, the first respondent Chinnathambi and

three others filed nominations. The nomination of the petitioner was objected to on the ground that he was disqualified under S. 25 of Act 35 of

1958 in that on the date of the nomination the sentence imposed on him for an offence, had not expired within five years. The objection was

overruled and and the petitioner was allowed to contest. The petitioner secured 308 votes and was declared elected. The first respondent filed an

election petition pleading that the nomination of the petitioner ought to have been rejected. The election of the petitioner was set aside.

The petitioner was found guilty, convicted for an offence under S. 406 I.P.C. and sentenced to two months R.I. on 10th June 1959 by the Sub

Magistrate, and the appeal to the District Magistrate failed and the conviction and sentence were confirmed on 13th July 1959. A revision to the

High Court was also dismissed on 28th July 1960. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Panchayat in June 1959. He went to jail on

19th August 1960 after his revision to the High Court failed. After undergoing the sentence, he was released on 3rd October 1960.

S. 25(1) of Act 35 of 1958 may be extracted--

A person who has been sentenced by a criminal court to imprisonment for any offence involving moral delinquency (such sentence not having been

reverted) shall be disqualified for election as a member while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was sentenced by a criminal court for an offence involving moral delinquency, the offence being breach of

trust. The disqualification for election according to the section is during tae time when he is undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date

of the expiration thereof, that is, five years from the date of release namely 3rd October 1960. The date of nomination being 31st January 1965 is

clearly within the period envisaged under S. 25.

Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under S. 16 of the Panchayats Act, 10 of 1950, the Government was

authorised to direct that a sentence by the criminal court shall not operate as a disqualification and that in exercise of that power, they directed that

the sentence on the petitioner would not operate as disqualification. By virtue of that order, the petitioner did continue as the President during the

last term. Learned counsel submitted that Act 35 of 1958 came into force on 2nd October 1960 and that S. 25 cannot operate retrospectively and

can take effect only in respect of convictions after that date. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the clear wording of S. 25. On the date

of the election if a person was undergoing sentence, or his sentence expired within 5 years, he is disqualified. The fact that under the provisions of

the Panchayat Act the Government directed that the sentence would not operate as a disqualification or that the conviction was before the Act

came into force will not make any difference. It was sought to be contended that the words date of expiration thereof would mean the date of

conviction and sentence and a period of five years from the date on which the sentence was passed must be calculated. I do not think the

construction attempted is possible when the wording is clear that the period of five years from the date of the expiration thereof. ''Expiration

thereof'' cannot refer to the date of the sentence, but only to the date on which the sentence had expired. The lower court was therefore correct in

holding that the petitioner was disqualified. This petition is dismissed with costs of the first respondent, Rs. 100.