TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the appellant and his wife, which resulted in granting of divorce decree by the first Additional Family Court, Chennai on 13.11.2003, and the said divorce decree was confirmed by this Court in C.M.A.No.816 of 2005, judgment dated 7.9.2007. (c) Before the said divorce decree was passed by the Family Court, the appellant's estranged wife filed a complaint in the year 1990 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, under section 494 IPC alleging bigamy. The learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, tried the said complaint in C.C.No.8575 of 1990 and convicted the appellant and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 10.5.1999. (d) The appellant preferred criminal appeal in C.A.No.131 of 1999 before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, who confirmed the conviction and sentence by judgment dated 24.1.2000. The appellant, having aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, challenged the judgment in Crl.R.C.No.602 of 2000 before this Court and by judgment dated 13.2.2003, this Court confirmed the conviction and reduced the period of sentence to six months from one year. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of India Gazette dated 19.2.2010, communicated to the appellant on 16.4.2010, was justified by the first respondent by contending that the order of the Honourable supreme Court dated 14.11.2003 was not considered by the Southern India Regional Council, while deciding the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant. (j) The appellant in his reply dated 5.1.2009, which was given in response to the letter of the respondent dated 29.12.2008, stated that if the Regional Council obtained the Supreme Court order from the Complainant, it must be disclosed, and if it was obtained directly from the Supreme Court it must also be informed to the appellant. 3. The contention of the respondent in the counter affidavit was that the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.11.2003 was not available with the Regional Council while deciding the complaint of the appellant's wife and the conviction rendered in the criminal case of bigamous marriage, having become final, continuance of appellant's name on the roll of the Chartered Accountants/Register of Members is in violation of Section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the appellant having incurred disability to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, appellate Court, revisional Court as well as by the Supreme Court, Section 8 of the Act comes into play, and as per section 20(2) of the Act, appellant's name was removed from the register. The learned counsel also submitted that the earlier order dated 29.1.2004 having been passed without knowledge about the order of the Honourable Supreme Court, the first respondent was justified in removing the name of the appellant from the register as he was debarred from continuing as Member of the Council of Chartered Accountants by operation of law, and if any order is passed allowing the appellant to be on the rolls of the register, it would be a statutory violation. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 8. Even as per the affidavit filed by the appellant, the appellant was proceeded for an offence of bigamy under Section 494 and 109 IPC in C.C.No.8575 of 1990 before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. It is not in dispute, after full trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence of bigamy and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the VI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the said complaint on 8.2.2001 by contending that the conviction and sentence imposed is still in appeal in the higher court and the lower court order is suspended, and hence there will be no effect on the continuance of his membership and the allegation of bigamy do not fall within the meaning of professional misconduct of the Members. A further reply was also given on 28.2.2002 by the respondent. Based on the said replies submitted and having regard to the fact that the conviction and sentence have not become final, on 29.1.2004 a decision was taken by the first respondent to the following effect: "The Council was prima facie of the opinion that you are not guilty of any professional or other misconduct." 10. The above said facts clearly reveal that the first respondent was not aware of confirmation of conviction by this Court recorded by order dated 13.2.2003 and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14.11.2003. The respondent, after knowing the said fact, particularly the order of the Supreme Court, issued a notice on 29.12.2008 stating as follows: "On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on 16.4.2010. 12. The above narrated uncontroverted facts clearly establish the fact about the non-consideration of the order of this Court as well as the order of the Supreme Court, confirming the order of conviction of the appellant for an offence of bigamy. The earlier decision taken on 29.1.2004 by the first respondent, was solely on the comments submitted by the appellant dated 8.2.2001 and 28.2.2002, wherein the appellant specifically had taken a stand that the criminal revision against the conviction and sentence filed before this Court was pending. Therefore, the appellant was not justified in raising a contention in his reply that the first respondent was not justified in issuing notice dated 29.12.2008, calling upon the appellant to send his comments for his personal appearance regarding the attraction of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The appellant deliberately failed to appear for personal hearing on 13.1.2009 and the same is evident from the reply/comments sent by him on 5.1.2009. In the comments/reply also the appellant was not able to state anything about the conviction recorded upto the Supreme Court regarding the offence of bigamy against him. The only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s either been granted a pardon or, on an application made by him in this behalf, the Central Government has, by an order in writing, removed the disability; of (vi) has been removed from membership of the Institute on being found on inquiry to have been guilty of professional or other misconduct." Section 20 deals with removal from the register of the name of any member of the Institute, which reads as follows: "20. Removal from the Register. (1) The Council may remove from the Register the name of any member of the Institute (a) who is dead; or (b) from whom a request has been received to that effect; or (c) who has not paid any prescribed fee required to be paid by him; or (d) who is found to have been subject at the time when his name was entered in the Register, or who at any time thereafter has become subject, to any of the disabilities mentioned in Section 8, or who for any other reason has ceased to be entitled to have his name borne on the Register. (2) The Council shall remove from the Register the name of any member ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed earlier, a restraint put in consonance with a valid law cannot be regarded as a restraint in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution." A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court also in the decision reported in AIR 1961 Allahabad 334 (Ram Prasad Seth v. State of U.P.) upheld similar rule under U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules. The said decision of the Allahabad High Court was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC 369 (Javed v. State of Haryana) in para 58, which reads as follows: "58. The law has been correctly stated by the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay and Gujarat, in the cases cited hereinabove and we record our respectful approval thereof. The principles stated therein are applicable to all religions practised by whichever religious groups and sects in India." 17. Rule 23(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1944, which prohibits entering into a contract of marriage with a person having a spouse living was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.15288/2012 and one of us (NPVJ) upheld the said provision by holding that the said p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tandards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people. (emphasis in original) 24. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [1996] 4 SCC 17 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 21, para 12) 12. Moral turpitude is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. The aforesaid judgment in Pawan Kumar ((1996) 4 SCC 17) has been considered by this Court again in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola [1997] 4 SCC 1 and placed reliance on Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector (AIR 1959 All 71) wherein it has been held as under: The expression moral turpitude is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravi....