Jordan v. DiGeorge
341 U.S.223: 95 L ed.886, 289 U.S.422. 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
Baleshwar Singh v. Dist. Magistrate and Collector
1959 All.71. It means
anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty and 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 or social duty which a person owes to his fellow-men or
to the society in general. 44 All.352 44 All.352; 1922 All.140.
How Is Moral Turpitude Determined?
The test which should ordinarily be applied and which should in most cases be
sufficient for judging whether a certain offence does or does not
involve moral turpitude appears to be 1) whether the act leading to a conviction
was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general, 2) whether
the motive which led to the act was a base one and whether an account of the act
having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved
character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.
Offences Which Can Be Called Moral Turpitude
Whether conviction for offence punishable under Sections 304-B/34 and 201 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 involved moral turpitude? - Held, moral turpitude as
defined is a conduct which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality or ethics
as to shocking to moral conscience of community - Offences committed by
Petitioners involved moral turpitude, as it was not only contrary to justice,
honesty or morality but it shocked to moral conscience of community -
Petitioners were given Show Cause Notice and Petitioners filed their
explanation/reply to same, employer after having considered reply of Petitioner,
passed order impugned and as such, no enquiry under Clause 28.1 of Certified
Standing Orders was necessary - Petition dismissed.
What Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude?
Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
(30. 09. 1994 - RAJHC)'Moral
turpitude'--meaning--Every act of violence does not necessarily involve moral
turpitude--Certain acts of violence or crimes may be committed unintentionally
through error of judgment which will not constitute moral turpitude.
A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and M R Shah said only those Acts which
disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorized as offences
involving moral turpitude and an offence of simple assault does not within it.
According to section 290 of Indian penal code, whoever commits a public nuisance
in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees.
Offences that are not expressly mentioned in IPC are included U/S 290 of IPC the
offences so covered in this section are non-cognizable, can be punished with a
fine not more than Rs 200/-, and there is no imprisonment.
Section 103 Of KPA
103. Penalty for contravention of orders under section 31.—Save as provided in
section 105, whoever:
- contravenes any orders made under section 31 or any of the conditions of
a licence issued under such order, or
- abets the commission of any offence under clause (a), shall, on
conviction, be punished,
- if the order under which the said licence was issued was made under
clauses(n) and (o) of sub-section (1) of section 31 with fine which may extend
to two hundred rupees;
- if the order contravened was made under clause (y) of sub-section (1) of
section 31, with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both;
- if the order contravened or the order under which the said licence was
issued was made under any other clause, with fine which may extend to fifty
rupees or in default to simple imprisonment which may extend to eight days.
The offences U/S 103 of KPA can be punished with a maximum imprisonment of 3
months and fine.
Does Conviction U/S 290 Of IPC And 104 Of KPA Add A Bar To Renewal Of Passport?
In the case of Abhishek Tiwari v/s Union of India,
Regional Passport Office,
State of Chhattisgarh. court held that for renewal of passport, the pendency of
criminal case is not a bar if a person seeking renewal obtains permission from
the concerned criminal Court for travel abroad.
The Court at very first cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India in which the
Supreme Court held that right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to travel abroad on the
aspect of personal liberty cannot be curtailed without reasonable opportunity to
As per the cited cases. There can be no bar for renewal of passport, but there
is a restriction under sec 10(3) of obtaining or renewing passport.
As per sec 10(3)(d) if a person is a convict of moral turpitude and
the punishment has to be more than 2 years (mentioned) then there can be a
hurdle in renewal of the passport
The person is a convict under sec 290 of IPC and 103 of Karnataka police act
where the maximum punishment is 3 months (mentioned u/s 103) therefore there
shouldn't be any problem in the renewal of the passport.