Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below that the petitioner, a returned candidate, in the election to the Grama Panchayath has suppressed material particulars of a criminal case he was involved while submitting his nomination paper, disclosure of which was mandated by the rules, and, therefore, his election as a member of the Panchayath is liable to be set aside, is challenged in the revision.

2. Petitioner and the respondent contested the Panchayath election held on 26.9.2005 from Ward No.3 of Balal Grama Panchayath. Petitioner having secured majority of votes than those secured by the respondent, he was declared elected. The respondent challenged the election of the petitioner filing an election petition before the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg contending that he had suppressed material particulars of a criminal case against him while furnishing Form 2A with his nomination paper. Petitioner was involved in a criminal case and facing trial, numbered as C.C.No.304 of 2004, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 153 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Hosdurg, was the ground canvassed by the respondent to impeach his election. Petitioner resisted that election petition filing a counter statement, in which he contended that the above criminal case had been stayed by the orders of the High Court. He had also raised counter allegations that the respondent (petitioner in the election petition) was a defaulter to a bank, a public sector undertaking, when he filed his nomination paper to contest the election. Both sides did not adduce any oral evidence. On the side of the respondent (petitioner in the election petition) A1 to A3 and for the revision petitioner (respondent in the election petition) B1, the order passed by the High Court staying the trial of the criminal case before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate were exhibited, and towards court exhibits, X1 to X4 series were also marked. The learned Munsiff, on the materials placed and hearing the counsel on both sides, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed material facts as to his involvement in a criminal case when he furnished Form 2A with his nomination paper, and thus, he had violated Section 52 (1A) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, which mandate furnishing of details of the criminal cases at the time of submission of nomination. His election was therefore found liable to be declared void under Section 102 (1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, and it was ordered accordingly. Challenge raised by the revision petitioner against the acceptance of the nomination of the respondent (petitioner to the election petition) that he was a defaulter to a bank, a public sector undertaking, was also found true on the materials placed, and accordingly, it was held that he too was not qualified to contest the election. So much so, the election petition was allowed in part setting aside the election of the revision petitioner. In the appeal preferred against that decision of the learned Munsiff by the petitioner, the learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the court below and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The main thrust of attack, and, in fact, the only challenge, canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to assail the concurrent finding of the court below is based on what meaning should be attached to the word 'trial' appearing in column No.1 of Form 2A of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995. The offences imputed against the petitioner in the case, which was pending before the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate Court, as C.C.No.304 of 2004 as on the date of filing of his nomination, all of them, were triable as a summons case, the trial of which start not when the report was filed before the court nor when the accused appear, but, only, when the particulars of the offences were mad