In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:29.7.2011 Beant Singh .....Appellant v. Jaswant Singh and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Election Tribunal-cum-DC, Mansa (for short - `the Tribunal'), whereby Election Petition filed by respondent No.1 for setting aside the election of appellant-Beant Singh as Panch was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be relieved from the post of Panch of Gram Panchayat Burj Jabhli. F.A.O. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) [2] After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and going through the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Jaswant Singh (petitioner before the Tribunal) had sought setting aside the election of Beant Singh (appellant herein) as Panch on the ground that the appellant in connivance with Returning Officer (respondent No.7) and Presiding Officer (respondent No.8) got his nomination papers accepted whereas these should have been rejected as he was not competent to submit his nomination papers because Beant Singh (appellant) had been convicted in a criminal case. He had been convicted in FIR No.62 dated 20.8.2008 registered under Sections 324, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Joga. The Returning Officer had scrutinized the nomination papers of the appellant. The objections raised by the respondent No.1 that the appellant had been convicted were not considered intentionally and had accepted the nomination papers of the appellant and in this manner he had allowed Beant Singh to contest the election. The appellant had given wrong information at the time of filing of nomination papers even after his conviction and he had also filed an affidavit (Ex.P.3) in which he had mentioned that he had not been convicted in any case. Although, in his favour the appellant has produced a copy of the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa and tried to rebut the allegation of his conviction that his conviction had been suspended and he was released on bail, but the fact that a case was pending against him and he was never convicted as mentioned in his affidavit could not be ignored. The appellant has submitted that he has already been acquitted vide order F.A.O. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) [3] dated 29.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa whereas the election of Gram Panchayat were held on 26.5.2008 and it cannot be ignored that during that period due to criminal case registered against him, he was not qualified to contest the election as per Section 208 (1)(c) and (n) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which reads as under:- “208. Disqualification for Membership: (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat, if: (c) has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude or an offence implying of any defect of a Sarpanch or Panch or Gram Panchayat or member of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his conviction; or xx xx xx xx xx (n) has been convicted of an offence under the protection of the Civil Rights Act, 1955 within a period of five years immediately preceding the last date of the filing of the nomination papers; or” . A perusal of the above provision shows that the appellant was not qualified to file his nomination papers being a convicted candidate and he could not contest the election and in this manner he had given wrong information about his candidature at the time of filing of nomination papers and submitted a wrong affidavit that no case is pending against him and he has not been convicted by any Court of law. Under the circumstances, the F.A.O. No.5005 of 2009 (O&M) [4] Tribunal was justified in allowing the election petition filed by respondent No.1. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. July 29, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*