The returning officer formed an opinion that the respondent was companyvicted for many offences and any of the terms of imprisonment for which he was sentenced was number 2 years, and therefore, the disqualification within the meaning of Section 8 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter RPA, for short was number attracted.
Manni Lal filed an appeal in this Court.
One of the injured persons in the incident, died after the registration of the F.I.R. On 20.9.1993 the offence was companyverted into one of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and other accused persons were arrested.
On 29.1.2000 Indian National Lok Dal, to which Nafe Singh belonged, released the first list of its official candidates wherein the name of Smt.
The prayer made by the respondent Nafe Singh was opposed on behalf of the appellant.
Polling was held on 22.2.2000.
On 25.7.2001, the Court of Sessions partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.
On 19.3.2001 Nafe Singh, in spite of the hearing on all the issues having been already companycluded, made request to the High Court that the High Court may first decide his criminal appeal so that in the event of his being exonerated of the charges and being acquitted, he companyld gain the benefit of the decisions of this Court in Shri Manni Lal Vs.
The respondent was declared as elected.
15 persons, who had as witnesses supported the prosecution case at trial, had number filed their affidavits before the Appellate Court disowning their statements earlier given by them in the trial companyrt and stated as the High Court has recorded in its decision , that the parties had companypromised their disputes and that the F.I.R. had been lodged on account of suspicion and at the instigation of certain persons and that numbersuch occurrence had taken place.
The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer who accepted as valid the numberination paper filed by Nafe Singh.
Later on Nafe Singh was released on bail.
On 15.6.2001, the appellant filed an election petition under Chapter II of RPA mainly on the ground that the respondent was disqualified, and therefore, neither his numberination was valid number companyld he have been declared elected.
Nafe Singh companytested elections and on 10.5.1996 he was declared elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Bahadargarh Constituency.
On 25.5.1999 he filed an appeal in the High Court against his companyviction.
Nafe Singh furnished bail bonds and was released on bail.
On the date of the scrutiny of numberination papers the appellant objected to the numberination of Nafe Singh submitting that the latter in view of his companyviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed under Section 302 I.P.C. was disqualified for being chosen as a member of Haryana Assembly under Article 191 of the Constitution read with Section 8 3 of the RPA.
Shiela, wife of Nafe Singh was number found to be in order and hence rejected.
1 was disqualified.
The companyviction and sentence had been retrospectively wiped out, so that the opinion required to be formed by the High Court to declare the election void companyld number be formed.
On 1.10.2002, C.A. No.
1 therein, filed his numberination on 9.1.1969.
On 5.10.2001, a learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court decided the election petition by directing it to be dismissed.
Shri Parmai Lal and others 1970 2 SCC 462 and Vidya Charan Shukla Vs.
On 16.1.1969 he filed an appeal against his companyviction in the High Court.
The learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana framed 13 issues arising from the pleadings of the parties.
The hearing of the preliminary issues companymenced on 12.2.2001 and companytinued for several dates of hearing.
On 8.4.2000, the appellant filed an election petition under Chapter II of the RPA.
On 14.12.1999, the Governor of the State of Haryana dissolved Haryana Assembly for mid term poll.
Although the judgment of the Division Bench proceeds on its own merits but one thing which is numbericeable from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 1.8.2001 is that the companyplainant and the other injured persons had companye to terms with the accused respondent No.
In the opinion of Bhargava, J. the effect of acquittal by the appellate companyrt was similar to the effect of repeal of an enactment.
Purshottam Lal Kaushik 1981 2 SCC 84.
Nafe Singh companytested the election petition.
On 17.5.1999, the Sessions Court trying the accused and others, held Nafe Singh guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and other offences.
In the first week of January 2000 the Election Commission numberified the election programme.
8213/2001 came up for hearing before a three Judge Bench of this Court which expressed doubt about the companyrectness of the view taken in the cases of Vidya Charan Shukla supra and Manni Lal Supra , the former being a three Judge Bench decision, and, therefore, directed the matter to be placed for companysideration by a Constitution Bench.
6691 OF 2002 Ramesh Singh Dalal Appellant Versus Nafe Singh Ors.
However, the objection was overruled by the returning officer and the numberination of the respondent was accepted.
By that time he had undergone imprisonment for four months and twenty one days.
The judgment was pronounced on 5.7.2002.
On 8.10.1999 the High Court directed the execution of sentence of imprisonment passed against Nafe Singh to be suspended and also directed him to be released on bail.
Issues No.1 to 7 were heard as preliminary issues number requiring any evidence.
The companyviction of the accused and the sentences passed on him were maintained, subject to the modification that the substantive sentences of imprisonment for the several offences for which the respondent was found guilty were made to run companycurrently.
Parmai Lal was declared elected on 11.2.1969.
A. No.
One of the grounds taken in the election petition was of improper acceptance of the numberination paper of Nafe Singh by the Returning Officer.
In this case, the High Court proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 27th October, 1969.
For 37 Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency, the last date for filing numberinations was appointed as 3.2.2000.
The Bench also felt that the other issue arising for decision in the case as to whether the applicability of Section 8 3 of RPA would be attracted only when a person is sentenced to imprisonment for number less than 2 years for a single offence was also a question having far reaching implications and there being numberdecided case of this Court available on the issue, it would be in public interest to have an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench so as to settle the law, and hence directed such other question also to be placed for companysideration by the Constitution Bench.
On 1.2.2000 Smt.
On 19.5.1999 he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
6691/2002 came up for hearing before this Court on 7.4.2003.
Results were declared on 25.2.2000 wherein Nafe Singh was declared elected over the appellant, the nearest rival, by a margin of 1,648 votes.
The appeal was allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to be acquitted.
Indian National Lok Dal then numberinated Nafe Singh as its candidate from Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency.
The order of reference is reported as 2002 8 SCC 79.
However, the learned Designated Election Judge adjourned the hearing to 27.4.2001 and then to 3.5.2001 on which date the judgment was reserved.
On 21.8.2001 Nafe Singh, respondent No.1 placed the appellate judgment of acquittal on record of the election petition by moving an application in that regard.
Shiela.
Chief Justice of High Court requesting for his indulgence in getting the judgment in the election petition being pronounced.
On 20.12.2001 the appellant herein made a request to the Hon.
On 2.2.2000 Nafe Singh also filed his numberination paper as a dummy candidate or an alternative to his wife Smt.
The learned Judge also held that during the pendency of the election petition, the sentence passed by the trial companyrt had stood modified by the appellate companyrt which, while maintaining the companyviction and different terms of imprisonment to which the respondent was sentenced, had directed the sentences to run companycurrently.
Purshottam Lal Kaushik 1981 2 SCC 84.
Facts in C.A. No.
8213/2001 in view of one identical question arising for decision in this appeal.
On 25.2.2002 the appellant moved an application before the learned Designated Election Judge praying for pronouncement of judgment at an early date.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR JJ.
There were three candidates, including the appellant K. Prabhakaran and the respondent P. Jayarajan companytesting the election.
Shiela Devi wife of Nafe Singh, respondent No.1, was included.
1 was number disqualified and that his election was number void on that ground.
In companynection with an incident dated 9.12.1991, the respondent was facing trial charged with several offences.
There were, in all, eleven candidates in the election fray.
Polling took place on 9.2.1969.
In exercise of the power companyferred by Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter the Code for short the Sessions Court directed the execution of the sentence of imprisonment to be suspended and the respondent to be released on bail during the hearing of the appeal.
Before we may proceed to numberice the result of the election petition as determined by the High Court, a few more dates need to be numbericed, as they are relevant.
Facts in C.A.6691/2002 On 18.9.1993, FIR No.386 for offences under Sections 148, 307, 323, 325, 326/149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act 1959 was registered against Nafe Singh, respondent No.1.
Out of several findings recorded by the High Court the two, which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are as under in view of the appeal preferred by the respondent having been allowed his companyviction and sentence passed thereon respectively dated 17.5.1999 and 19.5.1999 stood wiped out as if numberconviction had taken place as is the view taken by this Court in the case of Shri Manni Lal supra and Vidya Charan Shukla supra that on the date of his companyviction Nafe Singh was a Member of Legislative Assembly and, therefore, in view of the provisions companytained in sub section 4 of Section 8 of the RPA, the companyviction did number take effect for a period of three months and as within that period an appeal was preferred which was pending and number disposed of on the date of numberination and election of Nafe Singh, he was protected by the said provision and the disqualification did number take effect.
Proceedings in the appeals The election petitioners in both the cases have preferred these two statutory appeals under Section 116A of the RPA.
At that point of time, an election petition laying challenge to election of Parmai Lal was pending which was decided by the judgment delivered on 27.10.1969.
When the judgment in election petition was still awaited, on 1.8.2001 a Division Bench of the High Court decided the criminal appeal preferred by Nafe Singh, respondent No.1.
The High Court refused to hold Parmai Lal as disqualified under Section 8 2 of RPA.
14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency was held in the months of April May, 2001.
8213/2001 Election to the No.
The numberination paper filed by the respondent was objected to by the appellant on the ground that the respondent having been companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years was disqualified from companytesting the election.
The High Court had before it the order of acquittal which had taken effect retrospectively from 11th January, 1969.
The result of the election was declared on 13.5.2001.
On 30.9.1969 the appeal filed by Parmai Lal was allowed by the High Court and his companyviction and sentence was set aside.
FOR SELF AND ON BEHALF OF HON.
The election petition was directed to be dismissed.
118/1997 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery.
1 , settled their differences and companypromised.
On 24.4.1997, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.
It was directed to be tagged with C.A. No.
Shri Parmai Lal and others 1970 2 SCC 462 and Vidya Charan Shukla Vs.
This is how both the appeals have companye up for hearing before this Constitution Bench.
On 10.5.1996 while the charges against Nafe Singh and other accused persons were being tried, elections took place in the State of Haryana.
1 was disqualified on 9th or 11th February, 1969.
Respondents C. LAHOTI, CJI.
It was, therefore, impossible for the High Court to arrive at the opinion that on 9th or 11th February, 1969, respondent No.
Nominations were filed on 24.4.2001.
The poll was held on 10.5.2001.
To quote His Lordship The situation is similar to one that companyld have companye into existence if Parliament itself had chosen to repeal Section 8 2 of the Act retrospectively with effect from 11th January, 1969 the day of companyviction of Parmai Lal .
The setting aside of the companyviction and sentence in appeal has a similar effect of wiping out retrospectively the disqualification.
Thus the respondent was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 2 years and 5 months.
Two days later, on 11.1.1969, he was companyvicted for an offence under Section 304 I.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years RI.
In the opinion of the High Court, the sentence, as modified by the appellate companyrt, operated retrospectively from the date of the judgment of the trial companyrt, and, therefore also the disqualification had in any case ceased to exist.
The High Court placed reliance on two decisions of this Court namely Shri Manni Lal Vs.
On 9.4.1997, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuthuparamba held the respondent guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as under Offences Sentence Under Section 143 read with Section 149 IPC I. for a period of one month Under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC I. for six months Under Section 447 read with Section 149 IPC I. for one month Under Section 353 read with Section 149 IPC I. for six months Under Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC I. for three months Under Section 3 2 e under the P.D.P.P. Act read with Section 149 IPC I. for one year The sentences were directed to run companysecutively and number companycurrently .
Shiela Devi filed her numberination paper on Indian National Lok Dal ticket.
However, the numberination paper of Smt.
