295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
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.
On those allegations, the petition of companyplaint dated June 5, 1953 prayed that processes might issue against the three accused persons.
267 and 1954 1212 Criminal Revision Petition No.
249 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated January 12, 1954, of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge as Tiruchirapalli in Criminal Revision Petition No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 13, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.
The companyplainant further alleged in his petition that on May 27, 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, lie made a speech, and expressly stated that he intended to insult the feelings of the Hindu companymunity by breaking the idol of God 1213 Ganesa.
The companyrts below have taken the view that it did number, and on that ground, it stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and company had been recorded.
The companyplainant claims to be a Saivite.
It appears that the appellant filed a petition of companyplaint in the companyrt of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, against the respondents, three in number.
49 of 1956.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The petition of companyplaint 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 companymunity, who hold God Ganesa in veneration, and that the acts companyplained of, amounted to offences under ss.
17 of 1953.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave, is whether the petition of companyplaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
August 25.
No one appeared for the respondents.
The petition of companyplaint alleged inter alia that the first accused is the leader of Dravida Kazakam a companymunity of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of whose creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship , and as such, be was out to vilify a certain section of the Hindu companymunity and do propaganda by holding meetings and writing articles.
