Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 422 - HC - Companies LawRemoval of name from membership register by ICAI - Bigamy marriage - Appellant is a qualified Chartered Accountant who filled a divorce case against his wife concluding to a divorce decree confirmed by Madras High Court where complaint given by the appellant's estranged wife wherein bigamy was stated as a reason for preferring the said complaint against the appellant & ld' XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai convicted the appellant and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year which was reduced to six months by High court and Supreme court modified to the sentence already suffered by the appellant in this case - appellant's name was removed from the Register by ICAI on the grounds of conviction for bigamy - whether allegation of bigamy marriage will come within the meaning of moral turpitude? Held that:- As decided in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [1996 (5) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT ]considered in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola [1997 (3) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT ] and Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector (1958 (5) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) the expression moral turpitude is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellow men or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man. The appellant and his estranged wife are Hindus, governed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 17 of the Act states that marriage between two Hindus is void if two conditions are satisfied, viz., (1) the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the said Act, and (2) at the date of such marriage, either party had a husband or wife living and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 shall apply accordingly. Thus, it is evident that if a Hindu marries with a person having a spouse living or he or she have a spouse living, marries any person, shall be liable for bigamy. Thus having regard to the fact that the appellant married another woman, while the first marriage was subsisting, and had acted contrary to the law and to his "estranged wife", the offence of bigamy is coming within the meaning of "moral turpitude". The conviction recorded against the appellant for bigamy stands even today though sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. Hence, the decision taken by the first respondent to remove the name of the appellant from the register maintained by the Chartered Accountants Council in its 284th meeting held on 13.2.2010, which was published in the official gazette dated 19.2.2010 communicated to the appellant on 16.4.2010, which was upheld by the learned single Judge is valid and no interference is required as the appellant has attracted disqualification by operation of law viz., Section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, due to his involvement in an offence involving moral turpitude.
|