JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has declined to register the list of office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on the footing that a reference is pending before the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the Secretary of the society registered under the name and style of “Shiksha Prasar Bankatu Bujurg Etawah.” which runs an educational institution. The petitioner states that he was lawfully elected on 24.07.2022.

3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent submits that the petitioner cannot be elected as office bearer, inasmuch as, he has been convicted for murder in Sessions Trial No. 419 of 1993 (State Vs. Prema Devi and others).

4. Rejoining the issue, Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid fact. He, however, contends that the newly impleaded respondent himself is a convict under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1991 (State vs. Ajeet Singh and Others).

5. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner claims to be the manager of the committee of management. The petitioner was convicted by a judgment rendered by the learned trial court on 11.05.2017 in Sessions Trial No. 419 of 1993 (State vs. Prema Devi and Others) for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The learned trial court has found that the petitioner was a principal offender who had done the deceased to death. The offence was actuated by an old rivalry between the adversaries. Further, the conviction of the petitioner for murder still stands, and has not been upset by any appellate court.

6. The newly impleaded respondent was convicted by the learned trial court on 30.10.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1991 (State vs. Ajeet Singh and Others). The learned trial court found that the newly impleaded respondent was one of the principal offenders who committed the murder of the deceased. The deceased was murdered on account of an old enmity between the parties.

7. Both the petitioner and the respondent are linked to the offence of murder in the respective cases by credible evidence.

8. The right of the petitioner to be appointed as Secretary of the society has to be construed in light of Section 16A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The provision states as under:

“16A. Disqualification for holding office in society - A person who is undischarged insolvent or who has been convicted of any offence in connection with the formation, promotion, management or conduct of the affairs of a society, or of a body corporate, or of an offence involving moral turpitude shall be disqualified for chosen as and for being a member of the governing body or the President, Secretary or any other office-bearer of a society.”

9. The question of disqualification of the petitioner contemplated under Section 16A of the Societies Registration Act will turn upon the fact whether the offence for which he has been convicted involves “moral turpitude”. The phrase “moral turpitude” is of a wide ambit and has not been defined by the legislature. Recourse can be had to various dictionaries and authorities which define the aforesaid term:

(i) “Moral Turpitude” as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) is as follows:

“Moral Turpitude - The act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” [Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) p. 1008.]

“Implies something immoral in itself regardless of it being punishable by law”; “restricted to the gravest offences, consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved mind.” [ Id. p. 1517.]

(ii) According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, “Moral Turpitude” is:

“An act of baseness