A murder per se cannot be considered moral turpitude.

The petitioner herein was convicted for murder. He has completed his sentence and has come out from the jail. His conduct in the jail was praisworthy and satisfactory.

2. Be that as it may, there was an advertisement issued by the respondents for distributorship/dealership of L.P.G. The petitioner wanted to apply for the same but there was a condition in Cl. 5 which reads as follows :

"5. Candidates convicted in any criminal case involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom cases have been registered in the Court (other than freedom struggle) are not eligible to submit application)."

3. This clause has been introduced in a most casual manner, as it will be seen even if case is registered in a Court he is not eligible to submit application. If that is allowed some person out of grudge alone may file a case and get it registered in the Court. That will not make a person criminal. Further, whether a murder per se will come within the definition of moral turpitude or not that also doubtful. A murder may be for sudden provocation, if always may not be schemed/planned. Such a murder/crime will not come within the sweep of moral turpitude. The Supreme Court considered the concept of moral turpitude in AIR 1963 SC 1313 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 341) in connection with Advocates Act and there the Supreme Court pointed out as follows :

"Wherever conduct proved against an Advocate is contrary to honesty, or opposed to good morals, or is unethical, it may be safely held that it involves moral turpitude."

4. This aspect of the matter was considered in AIR 1959 All 71 (Baleswar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector, Banaras) wherein the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court pointed out as follows (at page 74) :

"The expression moral turpitude is not defined any where. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty modesty or good morals. It implies deprivity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or deprivity in the point of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If, therefore, 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 deprivity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man."

5. There the Allahabad High Court was considering the conviction under Ss. 107 and 182 of the I.P.C. The Allahabad High Court pointed out that conviction under S. 107 cannot be deemed to be moral turpitude but the other conviction was held to be moral turpitude. Be that as it may, in this particular case it is not necessary.

6. In AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 242 (Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that act of killing a person is normally attributed to a feeling of hurt or revenge; an act of personal vendetta, per se an act of murder will not come within the broad concept of moral turpitude. In paragraphs 13 and 14 it has been stated as follows (at page 247) :

"13. Whether an offence involves moral delinquency is a question of fact depending on the public morals of the time; common sense of community and context and purpose for which the character of offence is to be determined. In common parlance moral turpitude means baseness of character. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines moral - concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition or with distinction between right and wrong. . . . . . . . virtuous in general conduct. . . . . . Turpitude means "baseness, deprivity, wickedness." Thus any act which is contrary to good morals from societys point of view will come within the ambit of moral