MANGALI Vs. CHHAKKI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(2.) The petition is contested by the first respondent. He does not deny that he was convicted under Section 60 of the Excise Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-. He, however, explains the circumstances in which his conviction was recorded. His case is that he was suffering from pain and had been advised to take bhang as a medicine. Etawah, the district to which he belonged was not a prohibited area and bhang could be purchased from a licensed, shop. The respondent has thus under medical advice purchased a tola of bhang. He had to go in a barat to a place in the district of Kanpur and carried with him a tola of bhang which he had purchased lawfully. He did not Know that possession of bhang in the district of Kanpur was an offence and when the Excise Inspector asked him if he had any bhang with him he told him that he had a small quantity of one tola with him under medical advice and he did not know that possession of such a small quantity or bhang was an offence. He was, however challaned and subsequently convicted. The contention, therefore, is that the conviction was of a technical nature and in the circumstances the offence committed could not be held to involve 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.