Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, a candidate for the post of President of the Goa Football Association (GFA), challenged the election of Respondent No. 4 on the ground that Respondent No. 4 was disqualified under Article 27 of the GFA Statutes due to a pending criminal case under Section 408 IPC (criminal breach of trust). The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 suppressed the fact that a chargesheet had been filed and an order for framing of charge had been passed. The Returning Officer rejected the Petitioner's objection, and the election proceeded, with Respondent No. 4 winning. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 27(f) requires both that a person is charged in a court of law and that charges are framed for a non-bailable offence. Since the charge was never framed (the offence was compounded before framing), Respondent No. 4 was not disqualified. The court also held that there was no wilful suppression of material information as Respondent No. 4 was not disqualified at the time of filing nomination. The Returning Officer's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Disqualification - Interpretation of Article 27(f) of GFA Statutes - Requirement of Both Being Charged and Charges Framed - The court interpreted Article 27(f) which disqualifies a person who 'is charged in a Court of law and the charges are that of a non-bailable offence'. Held that the provision requires both conditions to be satisfied: the person must be charged (i.e., a chargesheet filed) and charges must be framed for a non-bailable offence. Since charges were not framed against Respondent No. 4 before the offence was compounded, he was not disqualified. (Paras 23-28) B) Election Law - Suppression of Material Information - Requirement of Wilful Suppression - The court held that for disqualification based on suppression, the suppression must be wilful and material. Since Respondent No. 4 was not disqualified as per Article 27(f), there was no obligation to disclose the pending chargesheet, and thus no suppression. (Paras 29-30) C) Criminal Procedure - Compounding of Offence - Effect on Charge - The court noted that the offence under Section 408 IPC was compounded before charge was framed, resulting in discharge. Held that discharge presupposes no charge was framed, and thus the second condition of Article 27(f) was not met. (Paras 18, 28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No. 4 incurred disqualification under Article 27 of the GFA Statutes by suppressing the fact that a chargesheet was filed against him for a non-bailable offence under Section 408 IPC, and whether the Returning Officer's order rejecting the Petitioner's objection was valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order of the Returning Officer dated 20.10.2022 and the election of Respondent No. 4 are upheld.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Article 27(f) of GFA Statutes requires both being charged in a court of law and charges being framed for a non-bailable offence
- suppression of material information must be wilful and material
- election programme need not provide for filing objections if Returning Officer can consider them
- compounding of offence before framing of charge results in discharge
- not acquittal.
