SLP Dismissed for Non-Disclosure of Conviction Under NI Act

Case Details: Poonam vs. Dule Singh - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 201 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Atul S. Chandurkar & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
• Ms Niti Richhariya, Aor for the Petitioner.
• Sarvam Ritam Khare, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Aors, Ms Jayasree Narasimhan, Ms Shweta Chaurasia, Kushagra Sharma, Anuj Agarwal, Akarsh Khare, Abhinav Srivastav, Ms Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta & Ms Akanksha Tomar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. She, however, failed to disclose her conviction in the nomination form for the election to the post of Councillor. Her election was challenged by the respondent, and the trial Court unseated her from the post of Councillor, holding her to be disqualified under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.

On revision application preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed, she had preferred the instant Special Leave Petition.

It was noted that the petitioner failed to disclose her conviction and consequent sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, by failing to disclose her previous conviction, the petitioner furnished false and incorrect information as regards her criminal antecedents.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, by failing to disclose her conviction under section 138 of the Act, the petitioner suppressed material information and thus failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 24A(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.

The Supreme Court held that the acceptance of her nomination form had therefore been rightly held to be improper, and since she was the returned candidate, her election was rendered void.

Further, since the petitioner had failed to disclose her conviction without any justifiable reason, no special or exceptional case had been made out by the petitioner for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the present SLP was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in CR-213-2025, dated 25-03-2025 (para 25) affirmed.
• Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju [Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-8262 of 2022, dated 9-11-2022]
• Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang [Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023, dated 9-4-2024] (para 16) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang [Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023, dated 9-4-2024] (para 6)
• Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju [Civil Appeal Nos. 8261-8262 of 2022, dated 9-11-2022] (para 6)
• Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar [Civil Appeal No. 1478 of 2015, dated 5-2-2015] (para 7)
• Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India [Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 121 of 2008, dated 13-9-2013] (para 7)
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2001, dated 2-5-2002] (para 14)
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India 2023 INSC 176 (para 22)
• Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant [Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007, dated 9-5-2014] (para 22)
• Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh 2016 INSC 1000 (para 23)
• Pritam Singh v. State 1950 INSC 9 (para 25).