Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8333 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.2372/2011)
RAGHVENDRA KUMAR Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
PRABAL KUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel appearing for
JUDGMENT
respondent Nos.2 to 5. This appeal seeks to
challenge the interim order dated 8.10.2010 passed
by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62085 of 2010, whereby
the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Returning
Officer of Block Madhogarh, District Jalaun,
cancelling the nomination of respondent No.1, was
stayed.
Page 1
2
3. The first respondent wanted to contest
election for Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Aheta,
District Jalaun and he, therefore, filed his
nomination paper which was accepted. Thereafter, by
an order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Returning
Officer of Block Madhogarh, District Jalaun, his
nomination was cancelled in view of his conviction
under Section 307 of IPC. It was argued before the
High Court that the first respondent was released on
bail by virtue of an order passed by a learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on
25.8.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.3676 of 2005. Apart
from this order, the impugned order accepted the
submission that the conviction of the first
respondent did not involve moral turpitude and
JUDGMENT
therefore, the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the
Returning Officer was stayed. Consequently,
respondent No.1 contested the election and got
elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Aheta.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the order dated 25.8.2005 passed by the learned
Single Judge was to admit the Criminal Appeal
Page 2
3
No.3676 of 2005 and suspend the sentence against
respondent No.1, but his conviction very much
remained. Since it was a conviction under Section
307 IPC, it would certainly amount to an offence
involving moral turpitude and, therefore,
the Returning Officer was right in cancelling the
nomination of respondent No.1 and the High Court had
no reason to interfere therewith.
5. Mr. D.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted
that the suspension of sentence by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court has to be taken into
consideration, which the Division Bench has done,
while granting stay of the order passed by the
Returning Officer.
JUDGMENT
6. We have noted the submissions of both the
counsel. In our view, the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is patently wrong.
Respondent No.1 was convicted under Section 307 IPC.
It is another matter that he was released on bail,
but the release on bail cannot be equated with
acquittal from the offence for which he was already
Page 3
4
convicted by the trial Court, and against which an
appeal was pending its decision in the High Court.
In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set
aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. Both the counsel having made
their submissions on the merits of Writ Petition
No.62085 of 2010, nothing further remains to be
argued in the High Court. Therefore, this writ
petition shall as well stand dismissed.
Consequently, the first respondent will vacate the
office of Pradhan of Village Aheta Gram Panchayat,
Block Madhogarh, District Jalaun. The appeal is
allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to
Respondent No.4, District Election Officer, Jalaun,
and Registrar (Judicial) of Allahabad High Court to
JUDGMENT
mark the above Writ Petition No.62085 of 2010 as
dismissed.
.........................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)
........................J
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi;
September 16, 2013.
Page 4