P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. G ESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are in perfect agreement with out learned brother Jeevan Reddi, J., in allowing the writ petition

(2.) The question is what is the scope and meaning of moral 'turpitude' used in Rule 10 (2) (ii) (c) of the Village Officers Service Rules. That clause provides that conviction for moral turpitude is a disqualification for being appointed as a Village Officer. The appellant before us, who was one of the respondents in the writ petition, had been caught red-handed by the Inspector of Weights and Measures on 28th March, 1973 when the former was delivering milk to the public as milk-vendor and found the measures short. When confronted, the appellant admitted his offence and opted the compounding in writing, since it was a compoundable offence. However, the appellant did not pay the compounding fee and the Inspector of Weights and Measures was consequently obliged to launch a criminal case under section 33 of the Weights and Measures Enforcement Act. Before the Court the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40, in default to one month's simple imprisonment. The question which was posed before our learned brother and which is reiterated before us by Sri Shiv Shanker, learned Counsel for the appellant, is whether this constitutes 'moral turpitude'.

(3.) It is true that the words 'moral turpitude', is not defined. They will have to be understood in the light of the circumstances of the case, the conditions of society and the actual manner in which the alleged offence took place. Understood in that manner, a milk-vendor delivering milk to the public in short measures, thereby cheating and deceiving them, certainly involves 'moral turpitude'. It may be that the appellant might have used these measures without knowing that they were short in size, but such is not the case here. When he was caught red-handed he cleanly admitted his offence before the inspector and immediately agreed for compounding the offence. Similarly, when he was charge-sheeted before Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty and admitted the offence. That will clearly demonstrate he was knowingly using smaller measures.