ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/returned candidate Bachchu Singh(for short ‘the returned candidate’) whose election as Sarpach of Gram Panchayat Paharsar, District Bharatpur has been set aside by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadbai, District Bharatpur (for short ‘the Election Tribunal’) vide judgment dated 14.10.2016 while allowing the election petition filed by Kamaldeep Singh, Respondent No. 1-election petitioner (for short ‘the election petitioner’). 2. Elections of aforesaid gram panchayat were held on 24.01.2015 in which the returned candidate-petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of the aforesaid gram panchayat. Respondent No.1-election petitioner filed election petition on the ground that his nomination form was wrongfully rejected by the returning officer. Returning officer also failed to take note of the fact that the respondent no. 1-election petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and maximum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 325 IPC was more than six months. However, respondent no. 1-election petitioner was released on probation by the trial court under the provisions of Section 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Respondent no. 1-election petitioner was not eligible to contest the elections in view of Section 19(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(for short ‘the Panchayati Raj Act’). He was convicted for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC which carries maximum sentence of more than six months under Section 325 IPC. Though he was released on probation, yet his nomination was rightly rejected by the returning officer. 3. Mr. Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Election Tribunal failed to consider that at the time of scrutiny of nomination form of respondent no.1-election petitioner at 11.00 A.M. on 23.01.2015, a memo for removal of defect was handed over to the election petitioner but he willfully remained absent at the time fixed by the returning officer for submission of his explanation regarding defect in nomination form. Since respondent no.1-election petitioner did not appear before the returning officer to remove the defect in the nomination form and failed to explain the defect pointed out by him, the returning officer was fully justified in rejecting nomination form of respondent no.1-election petitioner at 3.00 P.M. on the same day. Since respondent no.1-election petitioner did not appear before the returning officer to remove the defect in the nomination form and failed to explain the defect pointed out by him, the returning officer was fully justified in rejecting nomination form of respondent no.1-election petitioner at 3.00 P.M. on the same day. It is argued that under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994(for short ‘the Rules of 1994’), the returning officer was required to decide all the objections regarding the nomination form of any candidate and he may either on the basis of such objections or on his own motion, reject any nomination paper on any of the grounds contained in Rule 27(3) of the Rules of 1994. Rule 27(3)(d) of the Rules of 1994 provides that the returning officer can reject the nomination form of a candidate on the ground that the candidate has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1994, which provides that on the day appointed under Rule 23, for the presentation of nomination papers any person qualified under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act for election as a Panch to seek such election shall deliver in person to the returning officer his nomination paper in the form prescribed for such nomination paper, duly filled in and signed by him or bearing his thumb impression. It is argued that failure of any candidate in making his presence before the returning officer for removal of the defects pointed out by him itself is sufficient to exercise the powers by the returning officer to reject his nomination form on this very count only. The question whether the defect pointed out by the returning officer was substantial in nature or not, or whether on the basis of the defect pointed out by the returning officer, would be immaterial, if the candidate does not appear before the returning officer and does not explain the defect pointed out by the returning officer. 4. It is argued that election of the petitioner returned candidate was challenged by two separate election petitions. While one election petition was filed by respondent no.1-election petitioner, other election petition bearing no. 10/2015(42/2015) was filed by Nahne Ram. 4. It is argued that election of the petitioner returned candidate was challenged by two separate election petitions. While one election petition was filed by respondent no.1-election petitioner, other election petition bearing no. 10/2015(42/2015) was filed by Nahne Ram. As per the provisions of Rule 85 of the Rules of 1994, Election Tribunal was required to hear both the election petitions simultaneously, but it committed grave illegality in deciding both election petitions separately. While election petition filed by Nahne Ram has been dismissed vide judgment dated 12.08.2016, election petition filed by respondent no.1-election petitioner has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shaligram Shrivastava Vs. Naresh Singh Patel (Civil Appeal No. 4023/2001 decided on 19.12.2002); N.P. Punnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 ; Jyoti Basu & Others Vs. Debi Ghosal & Others, 1982 AIR 983 and judgments of this Court in Gopa Ram Vs. The election Tribunal & Another, RLW 2007 (3) 2227; Hanuman Prasad Vs. District Judge, Merta & Others, AIR 2001 Raj. 398 and judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. State Election Commission (W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016 decided on 30.03.2016. 6. Mr. Satish Khandal, learned counsel for respondent no.1-election petitioner opposed the writ petition and argued that nomination paper of respondent no.1 was wrongfully rejected by the returning officer ignoring the fact that he was though convicted, but was not awarded maximum sentence of more than six months under Section 325 IPC. It is wrong to state that respondent no.1 did not remove the defect pointed out by the returning officer within stipulated period. In fact, respondent no. 1 filed nomination form along with copy of judgment dated 04.12.2014, by which he has been convicted under Sections 323, 321, 325/34 IPC and this judgment itself also shows that the benefit under Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to respondent no.1-election petitioner. Thus, disqualification attached with the conviction stood wiped off. He has argued that Section 19(gg) of the Act is not applicable in the present case and applies to those cases where cognizance has been taken and trial is pending. The fact of conviction and release on probation was disclosed by respondent no.1-election petitioner in the nomination form. Thus, disqualification attached with the conviction stood wiped off. He has argued that Section 19(gg) of the Act is not applicable in the present case and applies to those cases where cognizance has been taken and trial is pending. The fact of conviction and release on probation was disclosed by respondent no.1-election petitioner in the nomination form. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act only provides that the offender shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. If law provides for disqualification of a person for being appointed in any office or for seeking any election to any authority or body in view of the conviction, that disqualification by virtue of section 12 of the Act stands removed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record and studied the judgments cited by the parties. 8. Sole premise on which nomination of respondent no.1-election petitioner was rejected was that he was convicted for offence under Section 323, 341 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Returning officer has filed reply to the election petition wherein he stated that respondent no.1-election was convicted under Section 323, 341 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at the relevant time and was disqualified to contest the election in view of the bar contained in section 19(g) of the Act and therefore, his nomination was rightly rejected. Section 19(g) only provides that every person registered as voter in the list of voters of Panchayati Raj institution shall be qualified for election as Panch, or, as the case may be, member of such Panchayati Raj institution, unless such person………, (g) has been convicted for any offence by competent court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more, such sentence not having been subsequently reversed or remitted or the offender pardoned. 9. What is significant to note is that for being disqualified to contest the election, not only the person concerned should have been convicted, but he should have also been sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more. This would mean that both the conditions of conviction and sentence of imprisonment of six months or more, should have been fulfilled. Conviction alone would not justify rejection of nomination paper/form. This would mean that both the conditions of conviction and sentence of imprisonment of six months or more, should have been fulfilled. Conviction alone would not justify rejection of nomination paper/form. Emphasis on sentence is further evident from later part of Section 19(g) where it is provided that such sentence, “not having been subsequently reversed or remitted or the offender pardoned.” In the present case, respondent no.1-election petitioner was convicted under Section 323, 341 and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC but was extended benefit of Section 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Section 4 of the Act empowers the court to release the offender on probation of good conduct. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which is more relevant for the present purpose, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Disqualification under Section 12 would mean making a person unfit for something for which he was otherwise fit. In the present case, respondent no.1-election petitioner could be taken as disqualified only if he was both convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and more whereas he was released on probation. Therefore, Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act if read with Section 19(g) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, would not attach any disqualification to respondent no.1 by reason of the fact that he has been granted benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. As for the conviction of the respondent no.1-election petitioner, he was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nadbai vide judgment dated 02.08.2013 along with other co-accused for offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and sentenced under Section 323 IPC to simple imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 325 IPC to one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. However, this judgment was appealed against before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated 04.12.2014 while convicting respondent no. 1 under Section 323, 341 and 325/34 IPC, extended the benefit of probation to respondent no.1 by invoking Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1,000/-. However, this judgment was appealed against before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated 04.12.2014 while convicting respondent no. 1 under Section 323, 341 and 325/34 IPC, extended the benefit of probation to respondent no.1 by invoking Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Respondent no. 1-election petitioner had produced before the returning officer copy of judgment dated 04.12.2014, but by ignoring the aforesaid judgment and entry made in Column No. iv of the nomination form of respondent no.1 that he has been extended benefit of probation, returning officer rejected nomination form of the respondent no.1. The fact that copy of the judgment dated 04.12.2014 was produced by respondent no.1 along with his nomination form has been admitted by returning officer Vijay Singh in para one of his reply filed to election petition. 11. In that view of the matter, it must be held that even if respondent no.1-election petitioner did not appear in response to the notice issued by returning officer, although this fact is disputed by the returning officer, he was still obliged to scrutinize nomination form of respondent no.1 carefully and read entries in column iv and examined the same by reading it with the copy of the judgment showing that respondent no.1-election petitioner has not been sentenced to six months or more and was extended benefit of probation by invoking Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 12. Mere fact that election petition filed by Nahne Ram was separately tried and dismissed by the Election Tribunal and election petition filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed by separate judgment would not render impugned judgment illegal because the point in issue filed by respondent no.1 Kamaldeep Singh is different than the one raised in the election petition filed by Nahne Ram. 13. In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Stay application also stands dismissed.