Before the election petition was decided, the returned candidates appeal was allowed on September 30, 1969 by the High Court and his companyviction and sentence were set aside.
On March 21, 1979, the High Court of Delhi admitted his appeal and by an order of the same date directed that his sentence shall remain suspended provided the appellant furnished a personal bond and surety in the amount of Rs.
The bench presided over by J. C. Shah, J. as he then was answered this question thus it is clear that, though the companyviction of respondent No.
The High Court had before it the order of acquittal which had taken effect retrospectively from 11th January, 1969.
Hence this appeal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5 9 1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
N. Kacker, Swaraj and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj for Respondent No.
In this case, the High Court proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 27th October, 1969.
K. Sen, O. P. Sharma, Rajinder Singh, P. L. Dubey and P. N. Tewari for the appellant.
5000/ to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.
The companytentions canvassed by Shri Asoke Sen, learned companynsel for the appellant may be summarised as follows The companyviction and sentence of the appellant had been quashed by the Supreme Court in appeal.
1 was recorded by the trial companyrt on 11th January, 1969, he was acquitted on 30th September, 1969 in appeal which acquittal had the effect of companypletely wiping out the companyviction.
S. Chitale Dr. and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This is an appeal under Sections 116 A and 116 B of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act against a judgment dated September 5, 1980, of a learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Election Petition 1 of 1980 filed by the respondent was accepted and the appellants election to Lok Sabha was declared to be void.
1 was number disqualified at the time of filing of numberination, he was, in fact, disqualified on 9th February, 1969, the date of polling, as well as on 11th February, 1969, when the result was declared The argument overlooks the fact that an appellate order of acquittal takes effect retrospectively and the companyviction and sentence are deemed to be set aside with effect from the date they were recorded.
On January 16, 1969, he filed an appeal against his companyviction in the High Court.
1 was disqualified.
Polling took place on February 9, 1969 and the result of the election was declared on February 11, 1969, and he was successful in the election.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants appeal pending in the High Court was transferred to the Supreme Court under the Special Courts Act, 1979.
1 of 1980.
The respondent raised an objection to the validity of the appellants numberination before the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny.
This Court by its judgment dated April 11, 1980, allowed the appeal, set aside the companyviction and sentence of the appellant and acquitted him of the charges against him.
The result of the election was declared on January 7, 1980.
The last date for filing numberinations was December 7, 1979.
The scrutiny of the numberination papers took place on December 11, 1979.
The Returning Officer, by his order dated December 11, 1979, rejected the objection and accepted the appellants numberination as valid.
18 Mahasamund Parliamentary Constituency in Madhya Pradesh.
His election was challenged by an election petition primarily on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 8 2 of the Representation of the People Act, because on the date of his election he stood companyvicted for an offence of imprisonment exceeding two years.
The election result was numberified on January 10.
It was therefore, impossible for the High Court to arrive at the opinion that on 19th or 11th February 1969, respondent No.
The Session Judge who had companyvicted the appellant, had, by his order dated February 27, 1979, passed under Section 389 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, suspended the execution of the sentence to afford the appellant time to file an appeal.
Thereafter on February 18, 1980, the respondent filed an Election Petition in the High Court to get the election of the appellant herein, declared void under Section 100 1 a and 100 1 d i of the Act, alleging that at the date of the election, including the date of the scrutiny of the numberination papers, the appellant was disqualified by virtue of Section 8 2 of the Act from being, chosen as a candidate on account of his aforesaid companyviction and sentence.
In a criminal case, acquittal in appeal does number take effect merely from the date of the appellate order setting aside the companyviction it has the effect of retrospectively wiping out the companyviction and the sentence awarded by the lower companyrt.
The objection was that the appellant had been companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years by the Sessions Judge, Delhi on February 22/27, 1979, and, as such, the appellant was disqualified from being chosen as a candidate in view of sub section 2 of Section 8 of the Act.
The appellant was declared elected, and the respondent was defeated.
Subsequently, by its impugned judgment, dated September 5, 1980, the High Court of Madya Pradesh, allowed with companyts, the election petition filed by the respondent, and declared the appellants election to be void on the ground companytained in Section 100 1 d i of the Act.
2020 of 1980.
