JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, who were members of the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Bank (for short, The Bank) were declared disqualified to hold the post since they were convicted and sentenced for offences under S. 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The aforesaid action of the 2nd respondent (Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies) is in challenge now.

(2.) FACTS, which are not disputed, are the following: petitioners were elected to the Board of Directors of the Bank on 19-2-1989. The period of the Board, as per the bye-laws of the Bank, is five years. On 16-11-1987 the two petitioners along with six others were charged for offences under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Gaming Act before a Magistrate. Except two, all the others pleaded guilty and the Magistrate convicted them and imposed a sentence of fine on them. The other two who pleaded not guilty faced trial and were ultimately acquitted. Petitioners are among those who pleaded guilty. The prosecution case was that all the accused were found engaged in playing cards with money on 29-7-1987 in the house of the 1st petitioner.

(3.) A conviction by a criminal court is not sufficient to invite consequence of rendering a member disqualified unless he has been sentenced for an offence involving "moral delinquency". The question here is whether the offences for which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced involve "moral delinquency". I do not think that the Rule making authority would have intended that the expression "moral delinquency" should be treated differently from "moral turpitude" since both expressions carry the same meaning.