K PRABHAKARAN Vs. P JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of great constitutional importance arises in this case, namely, whether a person who has been convicted for various offences and sentenced for each offence to periods of less than two years; but cumulatively and consecutively for a period of over 2 years in one and the same trial, is disqualified to contest an election under Sec. 8(3) read with Sec. 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act')?

(2.) The petitioner challenges the election of the respondent to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in the recent General Elections, the polling of which took place on 10/05/2001 from No. 14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency. The petitioner was sponsored by the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the respondent was a candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) wo contested as the Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate. The respondent was declared elected with a margin of 18620 votes insofar as he obtained 71240 votes while the petitioner got only 52620 votes. There was a third candidate; but he got only 1391 votes.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election by virtue of Ext.P1 judgment rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Kuthuparamba in C.C. No. 629/94 whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 447, 427 and 353 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as also for the offence under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Section 149 of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143, for six months under Section 148, for one month under Section 447, for six months under Secton 353 and three months under Section 427 all read with Section 149 of the IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act read with Section 149 of the IPC. The total period of sentence which the respondent was directed to undergo consecutively as per the said judgment, was 29 months.