RISAL SINGH Vs. CHANDGI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question calling for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the conviction of Chandgi Ram, respondent No. 1, under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act for being in possession of an unlicensed revolver can be considered within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 153 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, (Act No. 8 of 1954), to be a conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude so as to disentitle him to be elected to or to remain a member of the Gaon Panchayat.

(2.) CHANDGI Ram contested the election to the seat of the Pradhan of the Gaon Panchayat of Pritampur in Delhi State and as a result of the election was declared a successful candidate. Risal Singh appellant challenged the election by means of an election petition and the Election Tribunal on the basis of the admitted fact that Chandgi Ram had been so convicted of an offence under Section 19 (f) of the-Indian Arms Act held that he was not qualified? to stand for the election and his nomination papers had been improperly accepted. Hence the election of Chandgi Ram as the Pradhan. of the Gaon Panchayat of Pritampur was declared as invalid and Risal Singh, who was another candidate for the election, was declared to have been duly elected. Chandgi Ram then came to this Court by way of a writ against the order of the Election Tribunal and D. K. Mahajan by his order, dated the 19th of January 1965, held that the possession of an unlicensed revolver could not, in the circumstances of this case, amount to moral turpitude. He, therefore, allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IT appears from Annexure 'd', a copy of an order of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 6-D of 1955 (Punj), (Chandgi Ram v. State), dated 4-3-1955, that Chandgi Ram was convicted under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act on the 15th of November 1954. On appeal, while his conviction was maintained, his sentence was reduced to three months' rigorous; imprisonment and, in revision, Harnam Singh, J. further reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone and, in addition, ordered a fine of Rs. 100.