GOVIND KESHEO POWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(BOM)-1954-9-9
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 17,1954

GOVIND KESHEO POWAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

'FOLLIOTT V. OGDEN' [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE point raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondent 4 Shankar who has been declared elected. as a councillor of the Janapada Sabha, Pusad, at the election held on 1412-1953 was disqualified from offering his candidature in view of Section 10 (m) C. P. and Berar Local Government Act which runs thus: 10, No person shall be eligible for election or selection or appointment as a councillor of a Sabha, if such person x x x (m) has been sentenced by any Court to imprisonment or whipping for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, or to transportation; It is said on behalf of the petitioner that Shankar was convicted under Rule 72 (4), Defence of Hyderabad Rules by a Magistrate in the Hyderabad State-sometime in the year 1943 and sentenced to payl a fine of Rs. 10/- and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court. It is Further said that the offence under the aforesaid provision is punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to a period of three years and that therefore respondent 4 was, by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 (m), C. P. and Berar Local Government Act, disqualified from being a councillor.
(2.)RULE 72 (4), Defence of Hyderabad Rules (which corresponds to Rule 81 (4), Defence of Indiai Rules) reads thus: If any person contravenes any order made under this rule (amended by No. 11 of the year 52 Fasli Volume No. 4), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years; he shall be punishable with fine also or with both the punishments and if the order so provides any Court trying such contravention may direct any property in respect of which the Court is satisfied that the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government provided that the Court shall declare against it on the special grounds which will be recorded in writing. This rule like Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules merely prescribes a penalty for the contravention of an order but does not set out all the orders made under the Defence of Hyderabad Rules. The judgment, a certified copy of which has been filed, states that Shankar was convicted under Rule 72 (4), Defence of Hyderabad Rules but does not state what particular order made under the Defence of Hyderabad Rules was contravened by him. It would, however, appear from his return, from the certified copy of his statement as also from the statement of the police 'that his offence was that he was in possession of a bag of sugar when he was apprehended by the Hyderabad military police near the border of the State.
(3.)IT has not been established in this case that the act held to have been committed by respondent 4 was in contravention of any order made under the Defence of Hyderabad Rules. There is thus no adequate material before us on the basis of which we could find that respondent 4 had actually contravened any order made under the Defence of Hyderabad Rules. However we are prepared to assume for the purpose of this case that the certified copy of the judgment filed by the petitioner is conclusive in so far as the factum of the contravention of an order by respondent 4 is concerned as also of his conviction therefor.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.