BANSH BAHADUR SINGH Vs. S. PRASAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner and the second respondent were candidates for election to the office of Sarpanch of a Panchayat Adalat, and at an election held on the 14th Sept., 1956, the second respondent was declared elected. The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition under Sec. 12C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer in which he challenged the validity of the second respondent's election. His allegations were that the second respondent was disqualified from being elected as Sarpanch on two grounds; first, that he was less than thirty years of age, and, secondly, that he had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dated the 24th Sept., 1957, dismissed the petition and the petitioner now comes to this Court, the prayer being that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari.

(3.) We are concerned in this petition only with the question whether the second respondent was disqualified for election as Sarpanch on the ground that he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude a disqualification under Cl. (h) of Sec. 5A of the Act. It is not in dispute that some years ago the second respondent was charged before a Magistrate with the offence of stealing a camera and was found guilty. Instead however of passing a sentence upon him the learned Magistrate considered the case to be a fit one for the exercise of the power conferred upon him by Sec. 3 of the U. P. First Offend; Probation Act, and he released the petitioner after due admonition. The Sub-Divisional Officer had some doubt whether the proceedings before the Magistrate resulted in the conviction of the second respondent, and in the circumstances he acceded to an application made to him on behalf of that respondent that he should, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by R. 13 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules read with the first proviso to Sec. 5A of the Act, remove the disqualification from which the second respondent undoubtedly suffered if the proceedings before the Magistrate resulted in a conviction.