In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated:20/02/2006
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.65 of 2006
Muthumani .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
R.7 K.K. Nagar Police Station
Chennai.
2. Sundar .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
!For petitioner : Mr. V. Parthiban
^For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) for R1
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
The petitioner, mother of the detenue Manonmani, has filed
this petition for production of her daughter before this Court.
2. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said
Manonmani, appeared before us. According to her, she is a major. Her date of
birth being 10.03.1986. She also informed us that on 22.12.2005, she married
on Sathish of Vellore and from that date onwards she is living with him. We
also enquired her parents and they are agreeable to take back her daughter
alone. In the light of the information that she being a major; married to one
Sathish on 22.12.2005 and living together for last two months, we are not
inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. Inasmuch as the detenue
being a major and has married the said Sathish, it is for her to decide her
future.
3. Learned Government Advocate informs this Court that the
second respondent Sunder, has nothing to do with the detenue. The above
statement is hereby recorded.
In the light of the above information, we hold that the
detenue is not under the illegal detention of anyone. Accordingly, no further
adjudication is required in this petition and the same is closed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh
To
The Inspector of Police
R.7 K.K. Nagar Police Station
Chennai.
?In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
%Dated: 17/02/2006
*Coram:
The Honourable Mr. Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU
+Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.386 of 2003
A.R.Bhoopathi ..Petitioner
vs
1. The State Election Commissioner
through its Election Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
2. The District Election Officer-cum-
District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3. The Returning Officer-cum-
Block Development Officer,
Sulur Panchayat Union,
Sulur.
4. A.K.Palanichamy 5. A.V.Anbarasu ..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the Order dated 20.12.2002 made in E.O.P.No.181 of 2001 on the
file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Arun
^For Respondents : No appearance for R1, R2 and R5
Mr.V.Subbarayan for R3
Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram for R4
:ORDER
Civil revision petition arises against the order dated 20.12.2002 in
dismissing the election original petition filed by the revision petitioner, by
the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Revision petitioner filed the election petition (i) to declare the
election for the President of Arasur Village Panchayat held on 18.10.2001 as
null and void; (ii) to hold the declaration of the Election authorities dated
21.10.2001 announcing the 4th respondent as elected candidate in the election
for the President of the Arasur Village Panchayat on 18.10.2001 as null and
void; and (iii) to pass an order for re-election for the President of Arasur
Village Panchayat, on the ground that the 4th respondent was disqualified from
contesting the election that was held on 18.10.01.
3. According to the revision petitioner, the disqualification was the
conviction and sentence passed against the 4th respondent on 20.02 .2001 by
the Assistant Sessions Court in S.C.No.44 of 1999 for offences under sections
148 and 427 of IPC.
4. The election petition was filed on 05.11.2001. On appeal against
the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge of
Thiruppur, the Appellate Court, namely, the II Additional Sessions Court,
Coimbatore, has set aside the conviction and sentence on 11.0 9.2002.
5. The District Court, by virtue of its order dated 20.12.2002 held
that the order of setting the conviction and sentence aside will take back to
the original date of conviction, namely, 20.02.2001 and therefore, it may not
amount to a disqualification on the subsequent date of election, namely,
18.10.2001. The District Court further held that the offences under sections
147 and 427 IPC reported against the 4th respondent may not come within the
meaning of moral delinquency, since this could have happened even if a party
agitated for his protection of right, whether it is lawful or unlawful.
6. Regarding the second aspect of moral delinquency, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner drew my attention to the following meaning of term
“Moral Turpitude” as found in VENKATARAMIYA’s LAW LEXICON.
“The term “moral turpitude” 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 fellow man or to society in general……it is clear that if a
member of the Police Force is guilty of having been found drunk at a public
place or to have become habituated to liquor and if he is convicted by a
criminal court, then his conviction should be held as involving moral
turpitude-Durga Singh ..vs.. State of Punjab, A.I.R.1957 Pubjab 97 at page
98″.
7. According to Webster’s Dictionary meaning it is “an act or
behaviour that gravely violates the moral sentiment or accepted moral
standards of community”.
8. In the book “Words and Phrases Legally Defined” Vol.III, 2nd Ed.
at page 294, by Saunders, it has been observed under the heading ” Moral
turpitude” by the Court in Canada as follows:
“I find very little merit in the applicant’s claim that the admitted offences
of issuing false cheques and being the operator of worthless cheques are not
crimes of moral turpitude. These acts of baseness in the duties which a man
owes to his fellowmen …. I agree entirely with the American decisions that
the words “moral” preceding the word “turpitude” adds nothing to it, it is a
pleonasm which has been used only for the sake of emphasis”.
9. At page 1200 of the book “Corpus Juris Secundum”, Vol.I VIIIth
Ed.it is stated, “moral turpitude” is defined as quality of a crime involving
grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished
from statutory mala prohibita.
10. The learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court, A.P.SRIVASTAVA,
J., in Mangali ..vs.. Chhakki Lal (A.I.R.1963 All.527) was of the opinion
that all offences could not be taken as “involving moral turpitude” and if
that be taken, the Legislature would have, instead of using the word
“involving moral turpitude” would have simply used the word “involving in an
offence”. The tests, according to him, are as follows:
(1) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral
conscience of society in general;
(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one; and
(3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could
be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked
down upon by the society.”-Risal Singh ..vs.. Chandgi Ram, A.I.R.1966 Punjab
393 at page 393-94″.
11. It was also submitted that offence under Prohibition Act in
consumption of liquor was held as touching the moral delinquency and therefore
amounted to disqualification. Consumption of liquor does not occur in this
case. What was described in this case of moral delinquency was in respect of
offences under sections 148 and 427 IPC. Section 148 IPC deals with rioting,
armed with deadly weapon and section 427 IPC deals with mischief causing
damage to property. The term ‘ morality’ was governed by Vedic and Religious
Rules; whereas offences are described in Indian Penal Code. Even smoking may
be considered as immoral by Religious Rules; but they may not be offences of
present law with certain exceptions. Murder and theft were prohibited as
immoral in the above Rules of Religion. But fighting without hurting, as in
this case, and causing damage at the time of fighting was nowhere described as
immoral.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also did
not cite any incident or precedent to show that quarrel and fighting between
two groups is immoral. Therefore, I concur with the finding given by the
learned District Judge that the offences under sections 1 48 and 427 IPC., may
not involve “moral delinquency”.
13. Coming to the aspect of conviction setting aside by the appellate
Court may take back to the original date of conviction, the District Court
relied upon a case law in B.R.Katur ..vs.. State of Tamil Nadu ((2001) 7 SCC
231), which followed the principle laid in Vidya Charan Shukla ..vs..
Purshottam Lal Kaushik (AIR 1981 SC 547).
14. But that has been overruled in a later Supreme Court case in K.
Prabhakaran ..vs.. P.Jayarajan ((2005)1 SCC 754, wherein the following was
observed:
“The factum of pendency of an appeal against conviction is irrelevant and
inconsequential. So also a subsequent decision in appeal or revision setting
aside the conviction or sentence or reduction in sentence would not have the
effect of wiping out the disqualification which did exist on the focal point
dates referred to hereinabove. The decisive dates are the date of election
and the date of scrutiny of nomination and not the date of judgment in an
election petition or in appeal thereagainst”.
15. Therefore, it becomes clear that the order passed in the criminal
appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence at a later point of time may
not take back to the original date of conviction. The conviction and sentence
is construed to be continued till it was set aside. Even the suspension of
sentence may not erase it and the effect of which is to keep it in abeyance.
Therefore, on the date of election, namely, 18.10.2001 the conviction and
sentence dated 20.02.200 1 continued and that will make it subsisting
conviction and sentence.
16. Even though the conviction was subsisting on the date of
election, it may not amount to moral delinquency for the reasons aforesaid.
Therefore, the order of District Judge holds good.
17. For the reasons stated above, the Civil revision petition fails
and is dismissed .
Index : Yes.
Internet: Yes.
gl
To
The Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore.