Sornam Alias Easwaramurthy vs The District Munsif And Election Tribunal, Amrasamudram And Others

Srinivasan, J.—The petitioner was elected a member of the Sivanthipuram Pancbayat. He was later elected also as a President of that

Panchayat. His election as a member was on 24th May 1959. The validity of his election was questioned by the respondents 2 to 4 herein, who

moved the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, the appropriate authority for determining that question. The petition was dismissed on 10th November

1960. The disqualification alleged was that the petitioner had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Tribunal took the view

that the petitioner, having been convicted of specific offences under the Indian Penal Code, could not be said to have been convicted of an offence

involving moral turpitude. Against the order of dismissal, the respondents 2 to 4 brought the matter before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1005 of 1961,

and this Court quashed the order of the Tribunal and directed the matter to be re-heard and disposed of in the light of the observations contained

in the judgment. Thereafter, the Tribunal took up the question and reached the conclusion that the offences for which the petitioner had been

convicted were offences which involved moral turpitude and declared that the petitioner herein had ceased to be a member of the Panchayat

Board. It is to quash the order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed. It is unnecessary to traverse the contents of the affidavit

accompanying the petition. For, the question has been argued only on a solitary ground, and it is that the Tribunal misunderstood the scope of the

decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 1005 of 1961 in holding that the question had been more or less decided by this Court whether the offences

under S. 120B read with S. 109 or S. 121, I.P.C., were offences involving moral delinquency. It is urged accordingly that the Tribunal, which

misunderstood the law as laid down by this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. Though other grounds were set out

in the petition, they have not been pressed.

S.:16 (1) sets out certain disqualifications of candidates for election to Panchayats. A person who has been sentenced by a criminal Court to

imprisonment for a period of more than six months for any offence other than an offence not involving moral delinquency, shall be disqualified for

election as a member while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof. Learned Counsel concedes that, if it

should be held that the offences for which the petitioner was convicted were offences involving moral delinquency, then, the election having been

made within the period of five years, the petitioner was not competent to stand for election within that period and that the election in the instant

case was within such period. Under S. 19 (1) of the Act, the impugned disqualification of any member under S. 16 can be adjudicated upon, by

the District Munsif having jurisdiction over the Panchayat.

It is not in dispute in this case that the petitioner was convicted of the offences referred to.

In the decision of this Court in C.R.P. No. 1005 of 1961, Anantanarayanan, J., observed that, while the expression ""moral delinquency"" has not

been defined, ""it is clear enough that all technical and formal offences, and offences not involving mens rea would be automatically excluded "" from

that expression. But, where the person has the guilty intention of transgressing law and commits the act with full knowledge that he is offending the

law, it would certainly come within the scope of the expression ""moral delinquency"". The learned Judge observed :

After a careful consideration of this aspect I am inclined to feel that any grave criminal offence, which involves an element of guilty knowledge, and

which thus transgresses the majesty of the laws of crimes, will necessarily involve also an element of ''moral delinquency '' because of its anti social

content.

In a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Baleshwar Singh Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaras and Others, a similar question

arose under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The learned Judge therein observed that though the expression ""moral turpitude"" is not defined

anywhere, it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and that if the individual charged with a certain conduct

owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and

does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. In the instant case, the petitioner was one of 67 persons tried for

various offences of criminal conspiracy to set fire and blow up railway bridges and the like and with the violation of the Explosive Substances Act

for the purposes indicated. In the light of the observations in C.R.P. No. 1005 of 1961 and the other judgment that I have referred to, it seems

clear that these offences must be regarded as offences involving ""moral delinquency.'''' The conclusion reached by the Tribunal below is certainly

not erroneous in law, and if that ground, which is the only one pressed in this petition, fails, the petition has to be dismissed. The rule is discharged.

There will be no order as to coats.