K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) AIJAZ Ahmed petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Para Kamal in district Jaunpur. Niyaz Ahmad Khan, opposite party No. 1, an unsuccessful candidate filed an application under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act challenging the petitioners' election on a number of grounds. One of the grounds alleged that the petitioner had been convicted for an offence under Section 3|8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and as such he was disqualified to be nominated or elected or to hold office of Pradhan, as such his nomination paper had been improperly accept ed by the Returning Officer. The petitioner contested the proceedings. Thirteen different issues were framed by the Sub-Divisional Officer but he disputed of the election petition on his findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the petitioner's nomination paper was improperly accepted while issue No. 2 was to the effect as to whether the petitioner was disqualified from holdings the office of Pradhan in view of his conviction under Section 3(8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The Sub- Divisional Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner was con victed for an offence which involved moral turpitude and as such he was disqualified under Section 5-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to hold the office of Pradhan. He further held that the returning offi cer improperly accepted the petitioner's nomination paper. On these findings he set aside the petitioner's election and declared a casual vacancy in the office of Pradhan. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated October 16, 1974, setting aside the petitioner's election.
(2.) IT is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner was convicted under Section 3|8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, by a criminal court. On appeal the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence. On revision the High Court by its order dated July 10, 1 68, further reduced the sentence and the petitioner was inflicted with a fine of Rs. 50]- only. Since the petitioner's conviction was upheld the petitioner paid the fine of Rs. 501- on August 7, 1968. The ques tion then arises as to whether the petitioner's conviction under Sec tion 3/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act amounts to his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The expression 'moral turpitude' has not been defined either in the Panchayat Raj Act or in any other Act. The phrase 'moral turpitude' is defined in Bouviers' Law Dictionary as follows: "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow-men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule or right and duty between man and man." In Murray's Dictionary the word 'turpitude' means: "Base or shameful character; baseness, vileness, depravity, wickedness." The meanings given to the phrase 'moral turpitude' indicate wicked ness or debasement of character of a person, that element is a neces sary ingredient of an offence to constitute moral turpitude. In Mangali v. Chokhey Lal A.I.R. 1963 All. 527. 61. A.P. Srivastava, J. held- "The test which should ordinarily be applied for judging whe ther a certain offence does or does not involve moral turpitude appear to be (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 perpe tration could be considered to be of a depraved character or a per son who was to be looked down upon by the Society."
(3.) IN Buddha Pitai v. Sub-Divisional Officer A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 382, a Full Bench consider ed the question as to what offences involve moral turpitude. The Full Bench was of the opinion that any act constituting an offence which is contrary to honest or good morals or is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or society in general should be deemed to be an offence .involving moral turpitude. It depends on the nature and circum stances in which the offence is committed. The Full Bench empha sised that it is not the quantum of punishment or gravity of the act which is relevant for determining this question. It must be the in gredients of the offence prescribed by the statutory provision which involve moral turpitude. The above authorities make it amply clear that the ingredients of the offence must be examined to determine the question as to whether the offence for which the petitioner was con victed involved moral turpitude.;