Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 – s.22(1)(d)(iii) – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 – Petitioner suffered a conviction u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also ordered to pay compensation – The fact of her conviction, had not been disclosed in the affidavit filed along with the nomination form as required by Rule 24-A of the Rules of 1994 – Trial Court declared her election as null and void – Revision application before the High Court was dismissed – Correctness:
Held: Undisputably, the petitioner was convicted on 07.08.2018 u/s.138 of the Act of 1881 – On consideration of the statutory provisions as well as the documentary material on record it becomes clear that under Rule 24-A(1) of the Rules of 1994, every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish information which includes declaration of criminal antecedents, etc. – The information required to be furnished is with regard to any pending criminal case in which the candidate is charged or any criminal case that has been disposed of and has resulted in his conviction – Same is also necessary u/Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – Failure to furnish such affidavit can result in rejection of the nomination paper – It is an admitted position that, the petitioner failed to disclose her conviction for the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Act of 1881 – By failing to disclose her previous conviction, the petitioner furnished false and incorrect information as regards her criminal antecedents – As a result the verification of her affidavit was false and incorrect – The acceptance of her nomination form has therefore been rightly held to be improper – She being the returned candidate, her election was rendered void – As far as plea for exceptional case made by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be accepted – Both the Courts have concurrently found that the petitioner failed to disclose her conviction without any justifiable reason – In these facts therefore, no special or exceptional case has been made out by the petitioner for this Court to exercise jurisdiction u/Art.136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 10, 13, 15, 24, 25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.