Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.- The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Election Tribunal dated 7.2.2001 (Annex. 4), by which the election of the petitioner has been declared void and direction has been issued to hold fresh election. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Peeh, Tehsit Merta, district Nagaur and respondents No. 2 to 6 stood defeated. Respondent No.2 filed election pelition No. 12/2000 before the District Judge, Merta on the grounds, inter alia, that petitioner was involved in a criminal case and on the date of filing the nomination papers, charges had been framed against him, therefore, under the provisions of Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”), he was disqualified to contest the election. During pendency of the election petition, criminal trial stood concluded and petitioner was acquitted. Thus, he took the plea that as the acquittal related back to the date of framing the charges and the alleged offence, he could not be held disqualified on the date of filing the nomination paper. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner and allowed the election petition. Hence this petition. (3). A large number of issues are involved herein. However, the sole point urged before this court is that if petitioner stood acquitted during pendency of the election petition whether it can still be held that he had incurred the disqualification and his election was void? (4). On 18.1.1989, an F.I .R. was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under various provisions, including Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal code. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against the petitioner on 27.90. Petitioner filed the nomination papers on 30.1.2000, the date on which Criminal Case No. 103/89 was pending against him and charges had been framed, and won the election. Petitioner stood acquitted vide order dated 112.2000, when the election petition was pending. (5). Section 19 of the Act, 1994 provides for qualification for election as a Ranch or a member and declares that every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution, shall be qualified for an election as a Ranch or, as the case may be, a member of such Panchayali Raj Institution. Clause (g) thereof declares a person disqualified if he has been convicted by a competenl court for ah offence involving moral turpitude. The Act was amended by adding Clause (gg) therelo to make a person ineligible if “he is under trial in the competent court which has taken cognizance of the offence and framed the charges against him of any offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more.” (6). The only question remains is: whether petitioner, against whom the charges had been framed prior to filing of the nomination papers, was disqualified to contest the election inspite of his subsequent acquittal by the trial Court after being elected? (7). A Constitution Bench of the Hon’bie Supreme Court in N.P. Poor.uswami vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), observed that the Representation of People Act is self -contained enactment so far as elections are concerned, which means that whenever the true position in regard to any matter connected with elections is to be ascertained, the Court has only to look at the Act and the Rules made thereunder. (8). In Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani vs. Horeshwar Parashram & Ors. (2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that election is a continuous process consisting of several stages and embarrassing many steps, of which nomination is one. Nomination is the foundation of candidate’s right to go to the polls and must be treated as an integral part of the election. If a person is disqualified on the date of nomination, he cannot be chosen as a candidate because of the disqualification attaches to him on that day. The Hon’ble