B. P. Sinha, J. - (1.) The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave, is whether the petition of complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under S. 295 of the Indian Penal Code. The courts below have taken the view that it did not, and on that ground, it stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and con had been recorded.
(2.) It appears that the appellant filed a petition of complain in the court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, against the respondents, three in number. The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the first accused is the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a community of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of whole creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship), and as such, he was out to "vilify a certain section of the Hindu community and do propaganda by holding meetings and writing articles". It is further alleged in the petition of complainant that recently, the first accused "announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, the God sacred to the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community on 27-5-1953, in a public meeting at Town Hall. This caused terror-commotion in the mind of the Saivite Section of the Hindu Community." The complainant claims to be a Saivite. The complainant further alleged in his petition that on 27-5-1953, at about 5.30 p.m. the accused broke an idol of God Ganesa in public at the Town Hall Maidan, and before breaking the idol, he made a speech, and expressly stated that he intended to insult the feelings of the Hindu community by breaking the idol of God Ganesa. The said act of breaking the idol was alleged to have been actively abetted by instigation and aid by the other two accused persons, who also made speeches. The petition of complaint also alleged that the said act of breaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention of insulting the religious feelings of certain sections of the Hindu community who hold God Ganesa in veneration, and that the acts complained of, amounted to offences under Ss. 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. On those allegations, the petition of complaint (dated 5-6-1953) prayed that processes might issue against the three accused persons. In the list of witnesses appended to the petition figured the Additional District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Town Sub-Inspector of police, Tiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate, Trichy town. On the same date, the learned magistrate examined the complainant on oath. The complainant made statements in support of his allegations in the petition of complaint. Thereupon, the learned magistrate directed that the petition of complaint be sent to the Circle Inspector of Police, Trichy, for inquiry and report under S. 202, Criminal Procedure Code. On 26-6-1953, on receipt of the police report which "showed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place it was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount to any offence," the learned magistrate passed his order, dismissing the complaint under Sect. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the course of his order, the learned Magistrate observed as follows: "The mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been broken by accused 1 is not an object held sacred or worshipped by any class of persons. Simply because it resembled the God Ganesa held in veneration by a section it cannot become an object held sacred. Even Ganesa idol abandoned by the people as unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it is no longer an object held sacred by anybody, since such given up idols are found in several places of defilement. It is not an offence if a person treads upon any such abandoned idol. Therefore, the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa does not amount to an offence under Section 295, Indian Penal Code." "The speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a community, no doubt amount to an offence under S. 295A. Indian Penal Code. But for laying a complaint under this section the sanction of the Government is necessary. The section has been clearly mentioned in the complaint and it cannot be said it was included by oversight. Without a proper sanction an offence under this section is unsustainable. I therefore see no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and I dismiss the same under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code."
(3.) The complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirappalli, by his petition in revision, filed on 9-7-1953, under Ss. 435 and 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint. In the petition filed in the Court of Session, the complainant stated that the petition was confined to the complaint in respect of the alleged offence under S. 295, Indian Penal Code, and that it did not seek to revise the order of dismissal of the complainant in respect of an offence under S. 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition by an order dated 12-1-1954, holding, in agreement with the learned magistrate, that the acts complained of did not amount to an offence under S. 295, Indian Penal Code. In the course of his order the learned Sessions Judge made the following observations: "I agree with the learned Magistrate that the acts complained of do not amount to an offence. The accused, who profess to be religious reformers in a campaign against idolatory organized a public meeting at which they broke an earthen image of the God Ganesa. The particular image broken was the private property of the accused and was not it itself an object held sacred by any class of persons; nor do I think that idol breaking by a non-believer can reasonably be regarded by a believer as an insult to his religion; and the ingredients of S. 295, Indian Penal Code, are therefore not made out.";