ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Smt. T. Bhagya Laxmi assailing the order dated 26.02.2007 passed in O.P.No.66 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the O.P. filed by the petitioner questioning the election of Smt.G.Laxmi Devi-5th respondent as member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. 2. Background facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition by Smt.T.Bhagya Laxmi, in brief, are: The writ petitioner and the 5th respondent contested in the elections held on 24.09.2005 for Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. The 5th respondent secured highest votes and consequently declared to have been elected as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. The writ petitioner challenged the election of the 5th respondent on the ground that as on the date of her nomination, she incurred disqualification being a convict for the offences under Sections 323 r/w. 34 and 504 IPC in S.T.C.No.166 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Mahaboobnagar. The 5th respondent came to be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- on each count and the said conviction and sentence became final as there being no appeal preferred by her as on the date of her nomination. The 5th respondent filed counter contending that she preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.166 of 1997. It is further contended that the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time of filing nomination and thereby she could not be permitted to raise such an objection after announcing the result of the election. Before the Election Tribunal, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.A1 to A10. Whereas, the respondents did not choose to adduce either ocular or documentary evidence on their behalf. The Election Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the conviction of the 5th respondent for the offences under Sections 323 r/w.34 and 504 IPC does not render her disqualified to contest in the election as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality and accordingly dismissed the O.P.66 of 2005 by an order dated 26.2.2007. Assailing the order passed by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Assailing the order passed by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as on the date of the 5th respondent filing nomination, she incurred disqualification having suffered conviction and sentence of fine for the offences under Sections 323 r/w.34 and 504 IPC and thereby her election as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality is to be declared as void and instead the petitioner being the candidate who secured next highest number of votes is to be declared as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.Prabhakaran v. P.Jayarajan1. Much emphasis has been laid on relevant portion in para.39 of the cited judgment, which reads as hereunder: "......Fictionally an appellate acquittal wipes out the trial court conviction; yet, to hold on the strength of such legal fiction that a candidate though convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more was not disqualified on the date of scrutiny of the nomination, consequent upon his acquittal on a much later date, would be an illegitimate extension of the purpose of the legal fiction. However, we hasten to add that in the present case the issue is not so much as to the applicability of the legal fiction; the issue concerns more about the power of the Designated Election Judge to take notice of subsequent event and apply it to an event, which had happened much before the commencement of that proceeding in which the subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court. An election petition is not a continuation of election proceedings." He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravikanth S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S.Bagali (judgment dated 14.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No.5034 of 2005). He would also contend that once the 5th respondent is disqualified to get elected as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality, the writ petitioner is entitled to question the election. He would also contend that once the 5th respondent is disqualified to get elected as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality, the writ petitioner is entitled to question the election. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickann2, wherein it has been held that when a disqualified person gets elected, declaration by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that he is not entitled to sit in Assembly is proper. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that mere conviction per se does not make the candidate disqualified and what is stipulated in Section 15(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), is conviction for an offence involving moral delinquency. 6. The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the conviction and sentence of fine of Rs.300/- on each count for the offences under Sections 323 r/w.34 and 504 IPC rendered the 5th respondent disqualified to contest as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality? 7. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent secured maximum number of votes in the election held for Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. The Returning Officer declared the 5th respondent as duly elected as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality. The election of the 5th respondent is challenged on the ground that she incurred disqualification to contest in the election and thereby her election as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality is to be declared as void and instead the petitioner is to be declared as elected as Member of Ward No.30 of Mahaboobnagar Municipality, since she is the candidate who secured maximum number of votes next to the 5th respondent. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act deal with disqualification of candidates for election or for holding office as a member. Section 14 of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this case and it is only Section 15 (1) of the Act, which is relevant and it reads as hereunder: "15. Other disqualifications of candidates:- (1) A person who has been sentenced by a criminal court--- (a) To imprisonment for an offence under the Untouchability (Offences ) Act, 1955; (Central Act 22 of 1955). Other disqualifications of candidates:- (1) A person who has been sentenced by a criminal court--- (a) To imprisonment for an offence under the Untouchability (Offences ) Act, 1955; (Central Act 22 of 1955). (b) For any offence other than an offence of political character or any offence not involving moral delinquency, such sentence not having been suspended, reversed or the offence pardoned. shall be disqualified for election as a member while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof. 8. 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. No absolute standard can be laid down for deciding whether a particular offence is to be considered as one involving moral turpitude. The question will necessarily depend on the circumstances in which the offence is committed. It is not every punishable act that can be considered to be an offence involving moral turpitude. The tests 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 appear to be (1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as would shock the moral conscience of society in general, (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one, and (3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a deprived character or a person who has to be looked down upon by the society. Any grave criminal offence, which involves an element of guilty knowledge and which thus transgresses the majesty of the law of crimes will necessarily involve an element of 'moral delinquency' because of its anti-social content. Moral turpitude connotes conduct inherently base and contrary to accepted rules or morality though it may or may not be punishable as crime. 9. The accusation made against the 5th respondent as reflected in the judgment dated 13.10.2000 passed in S.T.C.No.166 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Mahaboobnagar, copy of which has been marked as Ex.A1, is that the 5th respondent, who is figured as A-1, abused Smt.K.Suneetha and beat her on cheek. 9. The accusation made against the 5th respondent as reflected in the judgment dated 13.10.2000 passed in S.T.C.No.166 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Mahaboobnagar, copy of which has been marked as Ex.A1, is that the 5th respondent, who is figured as A-1, abused Smt.K.Suneetha and beat her on cheek. The 5th respondent along with two other accused persons were put on trial before the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Mahaboobnagar. 5 witnesses were examined and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2 on behalf of the prosecution, and whereas, the accused examined one witnesses as DW.1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Mahaboobnagar, found 5th respondent G.Laxmi Devi and two others guilty for the offences under Sections 323 r/w.34 and 504 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.300/- under each count i.e. under Sections 323 r/w.34 and 504 IPC, by judgment dated 13.10.2000. 10. In my considered view, the offences alleged and proved against the 5th respondent do not involve moral turpitude. Even on close analysis of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, it indicates that a person who suffered sentence of imprisonment incurs disqualification and not a person who has been sentenced to pay a fine only. In my considered view a candidate who has been sentenced to pay a fine for the offences not involving moral delinquency does not incur disqualification. Therefore, the Election Tribunal is justified in dismissing the O.P. filed by the petitioner and the order of the Election Tribunal does not suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.