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.
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.
1, was included.
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.
On 25.7.2001, the Court of Sessions partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.
1 was directed to be acquitted.
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.
On 20.12.2001 the appellant herein made a request to the Hon.
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 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 R.I. for a period of Section 149 IPC one month Under Section 148 read with R.I. for six months Section, 149 IPC Under Section 447 read with R.I. for one month Section 149 IPC Under Section 353 read with R.I. for six months Section 149 IPC Under Section 427 read with R.I. for three months Section 149 IPC Under Section 3 2 e under R.I. for one year the P.D.P.P. Act read with Section 149 IPC The sentences were directed to run companysecutively and number companycurrently .
However, the numberination paper of Smt.
One of the injured persons in the incident, died after the registration of the F.I.R. and the offence was companyverted into one of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and other accused persons were arrested.
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.
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.
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.
On 19.5.1999 he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
The High Court refused to hold Parmai Lal as disqualified under Section 8 2 of RPA.
Nafe Singh furnished bail bonds and was released on bail.
The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer who accepted as valid the numberination paper filed by Nafe Singh.
Indian National Lok Dal then numberinated Nafe Singh as its candidate from Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency.
1 was number disqualified and that his election was number void on that ground.
On this reasoning this Court upheld the judgment of the High Court that the election of Parmai Lal was number void on the ground of his companyviction on the date of the poll and the declaration of the result, Vidya Charan Shuklas case Vidya Charan Shuklas case supra is a three Judge Bench decision of this Court.
On 5.10.2001, a learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court decided the election petition by directing it to be dismissed.
Parmai Lal was declared elected on 11.2.1969.
The High Court placed reliance on two decisions of this Court namely Shri Manni Lal v. Shri Parmai Lal and Ors.
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.
On 14.12.1999, the Governor of the State of Haryana dissolved Haryana Assembly for mid term poll.
1 to 7 were heard as preliminary issues number requiring any evidence.
The prayer made by the respondent Nafe Singh was opposed on behalf of the appellant.
One of the grounds taken in the election petition was of improper acceptance of the numberination paper of Nafe Singh by the Returning Officer.
DELIVERED BY C.LAHOTI, CJI G.BALAKRISHNAN, J WITH A.6691 of 2002 Appellants Ramesh Singh Dalal Vs.
On 21.8.2001 Nafe Singh, respondent No.
The learned Judge did number find any fault with the view taken by the returning officer that Section 8 3 of RPA was number attracted.
The appeal was allowed and respondent No.
The learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana framed 13 issues arising from the pleadings of the parties.
Nafe Singh companytested elections and on 10.5.1996 he was declared elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Bahadargarh Constituency.
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.
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.
On 25.5.1999 he filed an appeal in the High Court against his companyviction.
The hearing of the preliminary issues companymenced on 12.2.2001 and companytinued for several dates of hearing.
In this case, the High Court proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 27th October, 1969.
8213/2001 in view of one identical question arising for decision in this appeal.
Nafe Singh companytested the election petition.
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.
In the opinion of Bhargava, J. the effect of acquittal by the appellate companyrt was similar to the effect of repeal of an enactment.
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.
This is how both the appeals have companye up for hearing before this Constitution Bench.
There were, in all, eleven candidates in the election fray.
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.
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 I.R. had been lodged on account of suspicion and at the instigation of certain persons and that numbersuch occurrence had taken place.
Polling was held on 22.2.2000.
It was directed to be tagged with C.A. No.
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.
Chief Justice of High Court requesting for his indulgence in getting the judgment in the election petition being pronounced.
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 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.
The judgment was pronounced on 5.7.2002.
On 25.2.2002 the appellant moved an application before the learned Designated Election Judge praying for pronouncement of judgment at an early date.
Shiela.
and Vidya Charan Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik.
On 16.1.1969 he filed an appeal against his companyviction in the High Court.
Proceedings in the appeals The election petitioners in both the cases have preferred these two statutory appeals under Section 116A of the RPA.
The election petition was directed to be dismissed.
On all other points, I respectfully agree with the decision.
Thus the respondent was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of 2 years and 5 months.
On 8.4.2000, the appellant filed an election petition under Chapter II of the RPA.
On 1.2.2000 Smt.
Two days later, on 11.1.1969, he was companyvicted for an offence under Section 304 P.C. and sentenced to 10 years RI.
Shiela Devi wife of Nafe Singh, respondent No.
There were three candidates, including the appellant K. Prabhakaran and the respondent P. Jayarajan companytesting the election.
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.
Facts in C.A. No.
Manni Lal filed an appeal in this Court.
If at the time of the scrutiny of the numberination papers, a person companycerned was found disqualified, his numberination paper will be rejected and he would be unable to companytest the election.
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.
and Vidya Charan Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik.
Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna and G.P. Mathur JJ.
Facts in C.A.6691/2002 On 18.9.1993, FIR No.
On 1.10.2002, C.A. No.
Respondent Nafe Singh and Ors.
It was, therefore, impossible for the High Court to arrive at the opinion that on 9th or 11th February, 1969, respondent No.
1 , settled their differences and companypromised.
1 was disqualified.
Shiela Devi filed her numberination paper on Indian National Lok Dal ticket.
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.
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 .
In companynection with an incident dated 9.12.1991, the respondent was facing trial charged with several offences.
The High Court had before it the order of acquittal which had taken effect retrospectively from 11th January, 1969.
For 37 Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency, the last date for filing numberinations was appointed as 3.2.2000.
A. No.
1 placed the appellate judgment of acquittal on record of the election petition by moving an application in that regard.
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.
Polling took place on 9.2.1969.
Later on Nafe Singh was released on bail.
14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency was held in the months of April May, 2001.
1 therein, filed his numberination on 9.1.1969.
The election of the respondent Nafe Singh from 37 Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
8213/2001 Election to the No.
On 19.3.2001 Nafe Singh, in spite of the hearing on all the issues having been already companycluded, made a 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 v. Shri Parmai Lal and Ors.
Under Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, any improper acceptance of numberination is a valid ground for declaring the election void, if the result of the election, insofar as it companycerns the returned candidate, has been materially affected.
1 was disqualified on 9 th or 11 th February, 1969.
The result of the election was declared on 13.5.2001.
The respondent was declared as elected.
The election petition filed by the appellant shall stand allowed.
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.
6691/2002 came up for hearing before this Court on 7.4.2003.
Separate Dissenting Judgment G. Balakrishnan,J. I had the advantage of reading the Judgment in draft prepared by numberle and learned Brother, Lahoti, CJ, and I regret that I am unable to agree with the interpretation placed on Section 8 3 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
118/1997 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery.
On 30.9.1969 the appeal filed by Parmai Lal was allowed by the High Court and his companyviction and sentence was set aside.
Under Section 8 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, a person companyvicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for number less than two years other than any offence referred to in sub section 1 or sub Section 2 shall be disqualified from the date of such companyviction and shall companytinue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
In the first week of January 2000 the Election Commission numberified the election programme.
C. Lahoti, CJI, for Self and on Behalf of Hon.
On 24.4.1997, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.
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 2.2.2000 Nafe Singh also filed his numberination paper as a dummy candidate or an alternative to his wife Smt.
Shiela, wife of Nafe Singh was number found to be in order and hence rejected.
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.
