Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) Narain Singh, Petitioner, was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, village Baggeke Uttar, on June 22, 1972. His election was challenged under Sec. 13B of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) by Kashmir Singh, Respondent No. 2, which was set aside by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka, on July 31, 1974, on the ground that the Petitioner was disqualified from seeking election under Sec. 5(5)(b) of the Act and from being chosen as Sarpanch as he had been convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, which amounted to moral turpitude. It was also held by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate that the nomination paper of Darshan Singh had been wrongly rejected by the Presiding Officer. It is against this order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate that the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. I.K. Metha, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, raised the following contentions: (a) That the Sub -Divisional Magistrate erred in holding that the Petitioner was disqualified under Sec. 5(5)(b) of the Act on the basis of his having been convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. His argument is that his conviction under this Sec. does not amount to moral turpitude; and (b) that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate could not go behind the entries in the voters' list. Since the age of Darshan Singh was recorded as 23 years in the electoral roll of the State Legislative Assembly, the nomination papers of Darshan Singh was rightly rejected.
(2.) So far as the first contention of Mr Mehta is concerned, I find merit in what he says. No doubt, the Petitioner was convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act in the year 1971 but he was released by the Magistrate under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act with the following observations: The accused is a young man of 40 years of age and is admittedly first offender. He has been leading a good course of conduct before. It is a minor lapse on his part from the path of rectitude. Keeping these things in view I release the accused under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 500/ - for a period of six months, together with the surety bond and the personal bond in the said amount. During this period, the accused shall come and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so. During this period the accused shall maintain good behaviour and keep the peace. 'Moral turpitude' has not been denied either in the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act or in the Indian Penal Code. However, according to Law Lexicon of British India, 1940 Edition, at page 832, 'moral turpitude' has been defined as under: Anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. (Ame. Cyc.) Everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals is done with turpitude, so that embezzlement involves moral turpitude.
(3.) In Mangali v/s. Chhakqi Lal : A.I.R. 1963 All. 527, the Allahabad High Court laid down the following three tests which should ordinarily be applied for judging whether certain offence did or did not involve 'moral turpitude': (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. These tests were approved by their Lordships of this Court in Risal Singh v/s. Chandgi Ram and Ors., A.I.R. 1966 P&H 393. In the present case, applying these tests and the meaning of moral turpitude as given in the Law Lexicon of British India, it is to be seen whether the conviction under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act of the Petitioner amounts to moral turpitude. According to the facts of the Excise case, the Petitioner was found in possession of about 2 1/2 bottles of illicit liquor. There is no allegation that he was found distilling the illicit liquor nor there is any evidence to show that he had possessed that liquor in order to sell the same. It is a matter of common knowledge that in most of the rural areas in the Punjab people do take liquor. So far there is no prohibition imposed under any law against taking liquor, it may be an offence against the Revenue, but no morals are involved in such an offence. It cannot be said that such a conviction could shock the moral conscience of society in general. The society in which the Petitioner lives is generally of agriculturists and labour engaged in the agricultural pursuits. Such people generally take liquor in that society. Admittedly, the Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch by a majority of the voters in the year, 1972, notwithstanding the fact that he was convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and released on probation under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the year 1971. If it had shocked the moral conscience of the society in which the Petitioner lives, then nobody could vote for him.;