1

FAO No.476 of 2015 (O&M)

FAO No.476 of 2015 (O&M)

Date of Decision:13.02.2015

Baldev Singh

%.Appellant

Versus

Mohan Singh and others

%.Respondents

Present:

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

1.

This appeal was preferred against the order passed on 24.12.2014

by the Election Tribunal, Nawanshehr (Tribunal for short). The petitioner there,

respondent No.1 herein, has challenged the election of the present appellant as

Sarpanch of village Sajjowal.

2.

Respondent No.1 herein rested his claim before the Tribunal on the

ground that the appellant had contested the election by concealment of facts

because if he had disclosed the facts, he would not even have qualified to file

nomination papers. A criminal case by way of FIR No.66 dated 6.8.2009 at Police

Station Balachaur was registered against him regarding which charge sheet was

submitted by the police and trial was pending at the time nomination papers were

filed. Not only that, another case by way of FIR No.58 dated 9.2.2008 under

Sections 419,420,468,471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act was

registered against the appellant in which case he was released on probation but

fine of Rs.20,000/: was imposed on him.

3.

The appellant admitted before the Tribunal that there were criminal

cases against him, one of which was pending and in the other, fine had been

imposed on him apart from releasing him on probation. All this, he admitted in

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL

2015.02.13 12:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2

FAO No.476 of 2015 (O&M)

his statement before the Tribunal. However, in his reply to the petition, he

submitted that he had never been convicted and also did not disclose the

pendency of one criminal case against him.

4.

Finding that the appellant was disqualified to contest the election,

the Tribunal set aside the election of the present appellant and declared elected

the petitioner before it i.e. respondent No.1 herein, as the Sarpanch.

5.

Counsel for the appellant contended that at this stage he did not

dispute the pendency of the criminal case and the fact that imposition of fine in

the case registered at New Delhi amounted to conviction. Though release on

probation may not be a bar to contest an election, yet the imposition of fine was a

sentence. He further contended that inspite of all that, the Tribunal, though rightly

may have set aside the election of the appellant, could not declare respondent

No.1 elected. He relied on Lata Devi Vs. Haru Rajwar (1989) 4 Supreme Court

Cases 773, R.M. Seshadri Vs. G. Vasantha Pai 1969 (1) Supreme Court Cases

27 and Prakash Khandre Vs. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre 2002 (2) RCR (Civil)

827.

6.

Counsel for respondent No.1, however, first of all pointed out that

despite admitting in his statement before the Tribunal, the appellant had the

audacity to still pleaded in the grounds of appeal that no criminal case was

pending or registered against him. Despite pleading here that a fine of

Rs.20,000/: was imposed on him on 28.3.2011 and that he was held guilty and

convicted, it was pleaded that no sentence was awarded. The conduct of the

appellant in doing so was surely deprecable and is condemned by the court as

after his own admission at an earlier stage in the petition, the appellant still

mentioned in the grounds of appeal that there was no criminal case pending or

ISHWAR SINGH GARHWAL

2015.02.13 12:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

3

FAO No.476 of 2015 (O&M)

registered against him and that he had never been sentenced in any manner. He

certainly did not come with t