VIDYA CHARAN SHUKLA versus PURSHOTTAM LAL KAUSHIK

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 15-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
;., 
-
VIDYA CHARAN SHUKLA 
v. 
PURSHOITAM LAL KAUSHIK 
January 15, 1981 
637 
A 
{P. N. BHAGWATI, R. S. SARKARIA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J 
8 
Dfaqualificution fron1 being chosen as a candidate for election-Whether the 
electio11 of a returned candidate whose appeal against the orders of his convic· 
tion and sentence exceeding two years' imprisonment, pending at the 
date 
of 
scrufi,'iy of noniination papers is accepted by the appellate. court, resulting in the 
acquittal, before the election petition against hitn becomes void under 
section 
C 
lOO(l)(a) of the Representation of People .Act, 1951 on the ground that he wa.s 
disqualified from being chosen aS a candidate within the m·eaning of section 
8(2) uf the Act-Representation of the People Act, section 1(b), 8(2), (I). 32, 
36(2) (a), 53, 66, 67A. IOO ( l ) (a); Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 84, 102, 
173 and 191. 
The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 
tvvo years by the Sessions Judge, Delhi, on February 26/27, 1979. 
By his Order 
dated February 27, 1979, passed under section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, the Sessions Judge who had convicted the appellant suspended 
the 
execution of the sentence to afford the appellant time to file 
an 
appeal. 
On 
Morch 21. 1 979 the High Court of Delhi admitted his appeal and by an order 
of the same date directed that his sentence shall remain suspended provided the 
appellant furnished a personal bond and surety in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to 
the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, which was complied with. 
The respondent and the, appellant contested the election as rival candidates 
to the Lok Sabha from No. 18 Mahasamund Parliamentary 
Constituency 
in 
Ħfadhya Pradesh. 
The last date for filing nominations wa.s· Decembe:ri. 7, 1979. 
The scrutiny of the nomination papers took place on December 11, 1979. 
The 
Returning Officer by his Order dated December 11, 1979 rejected tbe objection 
of the respondent that the appellant was disqil'alified from being chosen 
as 
a 
candidate in view of sub·section (2) of section 8 of the .Representaotion of the 
People Act, 1951 and accepted the appeUant's nomination as valid. 
The result 
of the election was declared on January 7, 1980. 
The election result was noti· 
fied 
on 
January 
10, 1980. 
The 
&ppellant 
was 
declared 
elected 
and the 
respondent 
was 
defeated. 
Thereafter, on February 18, 1980 the respondent 
filed au election petition I of 1980 in the High court of Madhya Pradesh to get 
the election of the appellant declared 
void 
under 
section 
IOO(l) (a) 
and 
IOO(l)(b;(i) of the Act challenging that at the da·te of the election including 
the date of the scrutiny of the nomination papers the appellant was disqualified 
by virtue of section 8(2) of the Act from being chosen as candidate on account 
of his aforesaid conviction and sentence. 
The appellant's appeal pending in the High Court was transferred 
to 
the 
Supreme Court under the Special Courts Act, 1979. 
The Supreme Court by its 
judgment dated April 11, 1980 allowed the appeal 
set aside the conviction and 
sentence of the appellant and acquitted him Qf charges against him. Sub'sequent 
8-1 52SCl/81 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
to this decision of the Supreme Court, by its judgment dated September S, 1980, 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the election petition with costs and 
declared the appellant's election to be void on the ground contamed in section 
lOO(l)(d)(i) of the Act, hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : ( 1). Abiding by the principle of stare decisis and 
following 
the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ratio decidcndi of Manni Lal's case, [197.1] 1 SCR 798, the acquittal of 
th~ 
appellant in appeal prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the High 
Court in the eJection petition had the result of wiping out his disqualification as 
comr)letely and effectively as if it did not exist at &ny time including the date of 
the scrutiny of the nomination papers and that his nomination paper was pro-
perly accepted by the Returning Officer. [660B..C] 
Manni Lal v. Slzri Parmai Lal & Ors. [1971] I SCR 798, a.pplied 
(2) An order of acquittal particularly one passed on merits wipes off the 
conviction and sentence for all purposes, and as effectively as if it had never 
been passed. An order of acquittal annulling or voiding a conviction operates. 
from nativity. [6S4BJ 
Mallni

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