A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 Sri Chhakki Lal filed their nomination papers for election to the post or Pradhan of Gaon panchayat Sheora. An objection was raised against the nomination paper of the first respondent on the ground that he stood disqualified because he had been convicted of an offence under section 60 of the U. P. Excise Act and had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- for that offence. It was contended that the offence was one involving moral turpitude. The objection was accepted and the nomination paper of the first respondent was rejected, the petitioner was, therefore declared elected unapposed. The first respondent then filed an election petition and contended that in the circumstances in which his conviction under Section 60 of the Excise Act had been recorded the offence did not involve moral turpitude and his nomination paper had, therefore, been wrongly rejected. The Sub-Divisional Officer who heard the election petition accepted the contention, allowed the election petition, set aside the election of the petitioner and declared a casual vacancy. Against the order of the S. D. O. the present petition has been filed and it is prayed that the order be quashed by a writ or certiorari. The ground urged is that the S. D. O. was incorrect in his view that the conviction of the first respondent under Section 60 of the excise Act was not one for an offence involving moral turpitude.

( 3 ) THE question that, therefore, arises for decision in this case is whether in the circumstances in which the first respondent was convicted of the offence under Section 60 of the Excise Act it could be said that he had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

( 4 ) THE expression moral turpitude has not been defined in the Panchayat Raj Act or the rules framed thereunder. In Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector of Banaras, AIR 1959 All 71 a question arose as to whether conviction under Section 182 IPC. for making a false report was in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude and in answering this question in the attirmative Mr. Justice Tandon observed:-

"the expression moral turpitude is not defined anywhere but it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and weakness of character and 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 it it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to his society in general. "

In Shiva Nand v. Sub Divisional Officer, Chunar, 1961 RD (HC) 186, the question which arose was whether a conviction under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act was a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. There was a difference of opinion between Mootham C. J. and Dayal J. on that question and reference was made to Mr. Justice Mukerji. He answered the question in the affirmative and after referring to the dictionary meaning of the word moral turpitude he laid down:"the meaning given to the phrase moral turpitude by Bovier which I have quoted above, indicated that moral turpitude and turpitude mean almost the same type or failing in a mans character, or portray the same type of baseness in a mans moral and mental make up. "

He went on to say:"ideas of morals often undergo changes in different periods of a countrys history. It is also true that different people of the world some times differ as to whether a particular act is moral or immoral. Whenever a question has to be considered as to whether a certain act is moral or immoral one has to consider as to how that act is viewed by the society or the community, as the case may be, and if the society or the community views such act as involving moral turpitude, then even though some particular individual may n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document