JUDGMENT
J.N. Sarma, J.
1. The petitioner herein was convicted for murder. He has completed his sentence and has come out from the jail. His conduct in the jail was praiseworthy and satisfactory.
2. Be that as it may, there was an advertisement issued by the respondents for distrubtorship/dealership of L.P.G. The petitioner wanted to apply for the same but there was a condition in Clause 5 which reads as follows :
“5. Candidates convicted in any criminal case involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom cases have been registered in the court (other than freedom struggle) are not eligible to submit application.”
3. This Clause has been introduced in a most casual manner, as it will be seen even if case is registered in a court he is not eligible to submit application. If that is allowed some person out of grudge alone may file a case and get it registered in the court. That will not make a person criminal. Further, whether a murder per se will come within the definition of moral turpitude or not that also doubtful. A murder may be for sudden provocation, if always may not be schemed/ planned. Such a murder/crime will not come within the sweep of moral turpitude. The Supreme Court to consider the concept of moral turpitude in AIR 1963 SC Page 1313 in connection with Advocate’s Act and there the Supreme court pointed out as follows :
“Wherever conduct proved against an Advocate is contrary to honesty, or opposed to good morals, or is unethical, it may be safely held that it involves moral turpitude.”
4. This aspect of the matter was considered in 1959 Allahabad Page 71 (Baleswar Singh v. District-Magistrate and Collector, Banaras and Ors.) wherein the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court pointed
out as follows :
“The expression ‘moral turputude’ is not defined any where. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies deprivity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or deprivity in the joint of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duly, either to another individual or to the
society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and deprivity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.”
5. There the Allahabad High Court was considering the conviction under Sections 107 and 182 of the I.RC. The Allahabad High Court pointed out that conviction under Section 107 cannot be deemed to be moral turpitude but the other conviction was held to be moral turpitude. Be that as it may, in this particular case it is not necessary.
6. In AIR Punjab and Haryana 1998 Page 242 (Kuldeep Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors). The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that act of killing a person is normally attributed to a feeling of hurt or revenge ; an act of personal vendetta per se an act of murder will not come within the broad concept of ‘moral turpitude’. In paragraphs 13 and 14 it has been stated as follows :
“13. Whether an officence involves moral delinquency is a question of fact depending on the public morals of the time ; commonsense of community and context and purpose for which the character of offence is to be determined. In common parlance ‘moral turpitude’ means baseness of character, Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘moral’ – ‘concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition or with distinction between right and wrong….. virtuous in general conduct….’ ‘Turpitude’ means “baseness, deprivity, wickedness”. Thus any act which is contrary to good morals from society’s point of view will come within the ambit of ‘moral turpitude’. Dealing with the term ‘moral turpitude’ this Court in case reported as Durga Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
Punjab 97, helds under :
The term ‘moral turpitude’ is rather vague one and it may
have different meanings in different contexts. The term has generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellowman or to society in general. It has never been held that gravity of punishment is to be considered in determining whether the misconduct involved moral turputude or not.”
14. Act of killing a person is normally attributed to a feeling of hard or revenge, and act of personal vendetta. Per se an act of murder will not come within the broad concept of ‘moral
turpitude’ as interpreted by Court. Even otherwise, nomination papers of petitioners No. 5 and 10 were not rejected on this ground. Thus we find merit in this plea also.”
7. I respectfully agree with this position and I hold that a murder per se cannot be moral turpitude. The murder by the petitioner also will not be moral turpitude. There is no need to go into the deep in the matter inasmuch as a affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that they have accepted the tender of the petitioner and further they will consider the application. I direct that the respondent No. 1 shall riot consider the act of murder by the petitioner as moral turpitude in view of the above position of law. Accordingly, this writ application shall stand disposed of.