In Brief
A bank messenger was convicted under IPC Section 324 for stabbing two persons with a broken soda bottle. He was discharged from service under Section 10(i)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, which disqualifies persons convicted of offences involving moral turpitude. The High Court set aside the discharge, holding that Section 324 conviction does not necessarily involve moral turpitude. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that moral turpitude depends on the manner and circumstances of the offence, not the offence category alone. The respondent's conviction, considering the facts, did not involve moral turpitude, so the discharge was unjustified.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.