K. PRABHAKARAN versus P. JAYARAJAN

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR, H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
K. PRABHAKARAN 
A 
v. 
P. JAYARAJAN 
OCTOBER 1, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI, BRJJESH KUMAR AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 
Ss.8 and JOO(J}(a)-Disqualification of a returned candidate on ground 
of conviction and sentence-Relevant date-Whether date of election of the C 
returned candidate-Held, the view taken in Manni Lal's case* and affirmed 
in Vidya Charan Shukla's case** that setting aside of the conviction and 
sentence in appeal has the effect of wiping out retrospectively the 
disqualification requires reconsideration-The proposition that candidate 
though disqualified on the date of his being chosen, would become qualified D 
by reference to subsequent event which may happen during pendency of an 
election petition is open to question-Matter referred to Constitution Bench. 
*Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal, [19701 2 SCC 162 and **Vidya Charan 
Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik, [ 19811 2 SCC 84, referred to. 
E 
S. 8(3)-Disqualification of a candidate on ground of conviction and 
sentence-Term of imprisonment-Candidate found guilty of various offences 
and sentenced to imprisonment-Sentences directed by trial court to run 
consecutively, thus term of imprisonment running into more than 2 years-
Appellate court affirming the conviction but directing the sentences to run 
concurrently with the result that term of imprisonment was reduced to less F 
than two years-Whether total term of imprisonment under each offences or 
term of imprisonment for each individual offence is relevant-Held, there 
being no decided case available and the issue being of far reaching implications, 
an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench would be conducive 
_I 
to justice and would settle the law-Matter referred to Constitution Bench. G 
Bashir Ahmed v. Aphtar Hussain Khan, (1937) 2 Indian Election Cases 
341, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8213 of 
2001. 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From •he Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2001 of the K•rala High 
Court in E.P.No.1/200 I. 
L. Nageswara Rao, Roy Abraham, K.C. Sudarshan, Jayant Muthraj and 
Himinder Lal for the Appellant. 
B 
K.K. Venugopal and G. Prakash' for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
This appeal under Section l l 6A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 (RPA, 1951 - for short) deserves to be placed for hearing before 
C a Constitution Bench for the reasons stated hereunder. 
D 
No. 14 Kuthuparamba Legislative Assembly Constituency went to polls 
on I 0th May, 200 I. The respondent .was declared elected. The appellant lost 
in the election. 
The undisputed facts are that vide judg.ment dated 9th April, 1997 
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kuthuparamba (Annexure P 1 ), the 
respondent was held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 
447, 353, 427, all read with 149 IPC and also under Section 3(2)(e) of the 
Prevention of Damage to Properly .Act, 1984 read with 149 IPC and sentenced 
E to several terms of imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to nm 
consecutively. The total term of imprisonment which the accused was required 
to undergo was of 29 months though individually the term of imprisonment 
awarded for each of the several offences was less than two years. The 
respondent preferred an appeal laying challenge to the conviction and the 
sentences passed on him. Vide the judgment dated 25th July, 200 I, the Court 
F of Sessions upheld the conviction and the sentences passed on ·the respondent 
but subject to the modification that the substantive sentences of imprisonment 
passed by the Trial Court were made to run concurrently· (instead of 
consecutively). Thus, undisputedly, on the date of his election, the respondent 
was a convict sentenced to the term of 29 months' imprisonment passed by 
G the Trial Court. 
The appellant filed an election petition putting in issue the respondent's 
election, under Section 100(1 )(a) of RPA, 1951. The election petition came 
to be decided on 5.10.2001 befort; which date the cr:iminal appeal preferred 
by the re~pondent had stood decided. The learned designated Election Judge 
H of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, directed the election petition 
I ~ 
I 
\ 
} 
• 
K. PRABHAKARAN v. P . .IA YARA.TAN 
3 
to be dismissed forming an opinion that the verdict of guilt and the sentence A 
passed in the criminal appeal had wiped out the verdict of guilt and the 
sentences of impri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.