- (1.) Pursuant to the notification to elect a member for the Punjab Vidhan Sabha to represent the Giddarbha Assembly Constituency, the appellant Raghbir Singh filed his nomination on 1/2/1992 which was found valid in the scrutiny on 2/2/1992, and he contested the election held on 19-2-1992 wherein he was declared duly elected on 20/2/1992. Thereafter, the respondent Surjitscc Singh, a voter from that constituency filed an election petition for a declaration that the appellant's election was void on the ground that he was disqualified to be a candidate at the time of election. The facts on which this ground is based are admitted.
(2.) The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in addition to his conviction and sentence also under some other S. of the Indian Penal Code, by the trial court on 15/11/1984. The appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High court on 10/4/1987 and the special leave petition against the same was rejected by this court on 30-1 1-1987. The appellant was in jail to serve out his sentence from 8/9/1987 to 21/10/1987 and again from 8/2/1988 to 14/11/1989. There is no dispute that in accordance with the plain language of Ss. (3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the R. P. Act") , the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate at the said election held in February 1992 on this ground alone. The High court has upheld this contention of the respondent-election petitioner and allowed the election petition declaring the appellant's said election to be void. Hence this appeal under Section 116-A of the R. P. Act.
(3.) There being no controversy that according to the plain language of sub-section (3 of Section 8 of the R. P. Act, the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate at the said election held in February 1992, the appellant has also filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of 1994 along with this appeal challenging the constitutional validity of Ss. (3 of Section 8 of the R. P. Act. Unless that provision is held to be unconstitutional, it is obvious that the appeal also must fail. Thus, the only question for consideration by us is the constitutional validity of Ss. (3 of Section 8 of the R. P. Act.;