P. Mohanasundaram vs. The President, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi & Anr.
AIR 2013 MADRAS 221
Appellant, a qualified Chartered Accountant, enrolled his name as Member of the Southern India Regional Council, Chennai. In the year 1984 matrimonial dispute arose between 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 the High Court.
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 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, u/s. 494 IPC alleging bigamy. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, tried the said complaint and convicted the appellant and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 10-05-1999, which conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court but the sentence was reduced.y reduction in sentence.
After a lapse of 4 years and 11 months, that was on 05-07-2009, the first respondent re-opened the said issue and sent a letter to the appellant stating that the conviction for bigamous marriage involves moral turpitude and therefore as per section 8 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the appellant has to appear for an enquiry on 13-01-2009 at New Delhi to explain as to why his name should not be removed from the rolls/Register of Members. On 05-01-2009 the appellant sent a letter stating that by order dated 29-01-2004, the appellant was held ‘not guilty of any professional or other misconduct’ by considering the orders of the criminal court, including that of the Supreme Court dated 14-11-2003 and therefore no action need be initiated for the concluded matter. The first respondent, on 16-04-2010 passed an order removing the name of the appellant from the register of members.
The learned single Judge accepting the contentions raised by the respondents, upheld the order removing the name of the appellant from the Register of Chartered Accountants. The appeal is preferred against the said order.
The Hon’ble Court observed that it was 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to that of sentence already suffered, as per the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, it was beyond doubt that the conviction recorded in the criminal case against the appellant is subsisting as on today and the sentence imposed alone was reduced to the sentence already suffered.
The appellant’s contention that he was not heard before taking a decision to remove his name from the register was unsustainable as the appellant, in spite of giving opportunity to appear on 13-01-2009, not only failed to appear and he specifically took a decision not to appear. A person who refuses to appear in spite of receipt of notice for appearance, cannot be allowed to raise the plea of violation of principles of natural justice.
The next question considered was as to whether by virtue of the conviction for bigamous marriage the appellant sustained disability to retain his name in the register of Chartered Accountants.
One of the contentions of the appellant was that involvement of a person in an offence of bigamy is not coming within the purview of “moral turpitude”. 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 solemnised 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 was 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.
The Hon’ble Court held that the appellant married another woman, while the first marriage was subsisting, and had acted contrary to the law. Thus 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, which was upheld by the learned single Judge is valid and no interference was required.
