MIDHAI LAL Vs. S.D.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Qabulpur in 1972. The second Respondent, Jhao Lal, who was one of the defeated candidates, filed an election petition challenging the election of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner had been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act within five years of the election and as such was disqualified for the office of Pradhan as provided in Section 5 -A(h) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. This plea has been upheld by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bisalpur, district Pilibhit, who has set aside the election of the Petitioner and has declared the second Respondent, who had secured the second highest number of votes, as having been duly elected. The Petitioner has challenged this order in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) UNDER Section 5 -A(h) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act a person is not qualified to hold an office in a Gaon Sabha, if he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Sub -Divisional Officer has held that conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act involves 'moral turpitude'. 'Moral Turpitude' has not been defined in the Act, but it is an expression of every day use and its meaning is well understood. Commonly understood, 'moral turpitude' means wicked disposition, depravity, vileness, something which the society considers as base and immoral. Offences like theft, robbery, dacoity, perjury, rape, embezzlement etc. are offences which are regarded as immoral, wicked and base.

(3.) IT is true that a firearm can be used for committing offences like dacoity, robbery and murder. But it is those acts which are immoral and not the possession of firearm. In other words the misuse of a firearm may involve moral turpitude, but mere possession of firearm without a licence does not, in my opinion, involve any moral turpitude.