1. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 19 (gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Though In the prayer portion, reference has also made to Probation of Offenders Act and Article 243-F of the Constitution of India on being constitutionally invalid, submissions were confined to Section 19 (gg) of the Panchayati Raj Act alone.

2. Section 19 refers to qualification for election as a Panch or member of the Panchayat Raj Institution. Clause (gg) lays down that a person, facing trial in a criminal case against whom cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed for any offence punishable with Imprisonment for five years or more, shall not be eligible for such election. It may be mentioned at the outset that validity of Clause (gg) of Section 19 has been upheld by this Court in Shivram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 416 (Raj) observing that the provision is a measure of purification of democratic process, it has been held therein that severity of punishment provided by law is directly proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and, therefore, it is permissible to draw cut off line for offences punishable with of imprisonment for five years and the such offences can be classified as a distinct category. Clause (gg) comes into play at a stage when the correctness' of the allegations constituting the offence has been thoroughly investigated by the police and stood the test of judicial - scrutiny by way of framing of charges.

3. This petition is thus another attempt to challenge the validity of the provisions. The challenge in the instant case is more on the analogy of Clause (g) of Section 19 than on the ground of any inherent invalidity. It would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions as under:

"19. Qualification for election as a Panch or a member:

Every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch or, as the case may be, a member of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such person

(a).................

(g) has been convicted of any offence by a competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more, such sentence not having been subsequently reversed or remitted or the offender parddned;

(gg) 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:

4. The submission of Shri M.S. Purohit learned Counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, it is submitted, when as a person sentenced to imprisonment for less than six months, even if offence was punishable with imprisonment for five years or more, can contest the election, another person against whom merely charges has been framed for offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more cannot contest the election in terms of Clause (gg). Secondly, it IS submitted, in terms of Proviso 2 (II) to Section 19; a person otherwise not qualified to contest the election by reason of the sentence of imprisonment for more than six months, becomes eligible to contest the election after six years from the date of election, another person simply facing criminal charge albeit for the offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more is not eligible.

5. In course of hearing, our attention was drawn to the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted In the' criminal case, the pendency of which gave rise to the dispute about his eligibility to contest the election. In view of the provisions of Clause (gg), the eligibility/qualification has to be considered with reference to the date of election or filing of the nomination and, therefore, the submission to the above effect has to be summarily rejected.

6. In view of the nature of the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is not necessary to state facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was elected