MAHADEV RANGNATH BARDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the applicant-original accused No. 1 and learned A. P. P. , for the State.

(2.) THIS application is filed by the original accused No. 1 for suspension of his conviction in order to enable him to contest the election of the Panchayat Samiti. This accused along with many others was prosecuted for different offences under Indian Penal Code, namely, under sections 143, 147, 148, 325 read with 149 of I. P. C. and were sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years each and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default S. I. for six months. Accused-appellant wants to contest for Panchayat Samiti and as per section 58 (1e) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, (for short "the said Act") his conviction is disqualification in his way because section 16 (1) (b) of the said Act provides that if a person has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year shall be disqualified. Counsel for the appellant contended there is no moral turpitude in this offence against the accused, his conviction is for assault and for unlawful assembly; that the accused was Sarpanch of the village. The Panchayat Samiti has decided to construct a road when the complainant obstructed and then altercation took place in which some members of the complainants side suffered injuries and in that background the accused came to be convicted. He relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in (1) 1998 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) 46 : 1997 (III) L. J. 253 (Laxman Malhari Sable v. State of Maharashtra), (2) 1995 Supreme Court Cases 513 (Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and others), and (3) 1996 (5) Supreme Court Cases 329 State of T. N. v. A. Jaganathan.

(3.) IN 1996 (5) S. C. C. 329 the criteria laid down by Supreme Court in this regard is that the moral conduct of the person should be considered while exercising power for suspension of conviction. In 1995 S. C. C. 513 the criteria that is laid down is that: