RAVIKANT S. PATIL versus SARVABHOUMA S. BAGALI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1156 · Decided: 14-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.K. THAKKER, R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... .,,,. 
A 
RA VIKANT S. PATIL 
v. 
SARVABHOUMA S. BAGALI 
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., C.K. THAKKERAND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
c 
ss. 8(J)(a) and 8(3)-Disqualification-Stay of conviction granted 
before the date of filing of nomination-Held, on the dates of nomination and 
election, in view of the order of the High Court staying conviction, the 
candidate was not disqualified-Code of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3-s. 389(1) 
read with s.374-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 366 and 377-Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 191. 
D 
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors., [199512 SCC 513, relied on. 
HR.Kapur v. State a/Tamil Nadu, [2001] 7 SCC 231, held not applicable. 
< 
.... 
State a/Tamil Nadu v. A.Jaganathan, [1996] 5 SCC 329, distinguished. 
E 
K.C.Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh, [2001) 6 SCC 584 ; State of 
Maharashtra v. Gajanan & Anr., [2003) 12 SCC 432; K.Prabhakaran v. P. 
Jayarajan, [2005] 1 SCC 754; and Union of India v. Atar Singh, (2003) 12 
sec 434, referred to. 
F 
Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal, (1970) 2 SCC 462 and Vidya Charan Shukla 
v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik, (1981) 2 SCC 84, already overruled. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5034 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15-7-2005 of the High court of 
G 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Election Petition No. 4/2004. 
Harish N. Salve, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sushi! Karanjkar, V.N. 
Raghupathy and B. Subrahmanya Prasad, for the Appellant. 
Shantha Kr. Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, C.B. Gururaj and Girisah Y.L., for 
H 
1156 
i 
.t 
RA VIKANT S. PATIL v. SARY ABHOUMA S. BAGALI 
1157 
the Applicants. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
This appeal under Section I 16A of the Representation of the People B 
Act, I 95 I (for short, the Act) has been preferred by the elected candidate. 
The facts are brief and few. The appellant was an elected member of the 
Kamataka Legislative Assembly which was dissolved in February 2004. By 
judgment and order dated 28th July 2000, the appellant was convicted and 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years by the VI 
Addi. Sessions Judge, Solapur, in S.C.No.203/1999. Immediately thereafter, C 
Criminal Appeal No.658 of2000 was preferred by the appellant challenging the 
judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 
Pending the appeal, the 
Bombay High Court granted stay of the execution of the sentence. 
(2) The fresh elections to Karnataka Legislative Assembly were notified. D 
The election programme notified was as under: 
Last date of nomination 
Date of scrutiny of nomination 
Last date for withdrawal 
Date of polling 
Date of declaration of result 
31.03.2004 
02.04.2004 
05.04.2004 
20.04.2004 
13.05.2004 
The appellant moved an application in the pending appeal, for stay of 
E 
the order of conviction dated 28th July, 2000, so that he can contest the F 
election. The Bombay High Court, by order dated 26th March, 2004, stayed 
the conviction pending appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed his nomination 
on 29th March 2004. The respondent raised an objection to the acceptance 
of appellant's nomination, contending that the appellant was disqualified 
under Section 8(1) and (3) of the Act. The said objection raised by the G 
respondent was rejected by the Returning Officer. The appellant was declared 
elected on 13th May 2004. 
(3) The election of the appellant was challenged by the respondent 
before the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the appellant was not 
qualified to contest the election. In the Election Petition, the case set up by H 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A the respondent was that on the date of filing of nominations and on the date 
of declaration of the results, the elected candidate was disqualified for being 
chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly, in view of Section 8(1)(3)(4) 
of the Act, as he had been convicted for an offence punishable under 
Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment 
B for more than two years. 
(4) During the pendency of the election petition, the appellant's appeal 
against conviction was allowed by the Bombay High Court by judgment 
dated 10th September, 2004 and he was acquitted. 
(5) By the judgment under appeal, the High Court, relying upon the 
C decision of this Court in K.Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, (2005] I SCC 754, 
came to the conclusion that the appellant was disqualified to contest the 
election, in view of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.