Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The passing of a provisional order, such as Ex. F, with out enquiry or hearing the person to be affected was, as the evidence shows, in accordance with precedent and can be justified so far as it was essential to the effectual execution of ac cused's power and duty to protect the interest of the community in his charge by saving its members from the risk of contamination from intercourse with one whose orthodoxy was in doubt. Even if immediate action had not been necessary on account of the communal feasts, which were to take place on the day of and two days after the publication and which were distinct reason against delay, precautions had in any case to be taken against the wider consequences of ordinary association between the complainant and the community at large. Before the publication of Ex. F on 23-11-1920, there had been no reason able opportunity for enquiry, because the formal representation, Ex. in, on which accused wisely insisted before he would act, reached him only on 20-11-1920. No doubt, since com plainant's alleged breach of caste law was committed on 24101920 and since tire matter was first brought to accused's notice shortly after 4-11-1920, there was, before accused sent his reply, Ex. XI, on 20-11-1920, an interview with nth and 12th prosecution witnesses, who said that complainant would undertake nothing attend the feasts and that a provisional interdict might be prepared for publication in case he attempted to do so. But the Court has no right to review the accused's exercise of his discretion in rejecting this undertaking and the alternative, the issue of an interdict in case complainant broke his word, would probably have been ineffectual to prevent the consequences, including very likely a disturbance, of his doing so. It is clear from the evidence that complainant's conduct raised difficult questions of fact and religious law, for in his lawyer's letter, Ex. A, he had referred to the newspaper report of the original occurrence, a dinner at which he and pariahs had eaten together, as false without qualification and it appears from the evidence that there was much to be said as to the exact conditions, in which such intercourse would be sinful, and that some of accused's advisers were raising the question whether any penance could be effectual. In these circumstances there is, regard being had to the limitation on the Court's right to scrutinize the accused's proceedings, more than enough to show that they were up to this stage taken in good faith.

Ramesam, J.

5. This is a revision Petition filed against the order of the Sessions Judge of South Kanara, confirming the conviction and sentence by the First Class Divisional Magistrate of Mangalore under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (Defamation). The accused is the petitioner. He is the head of the Kasi Mutt in South Kanara District and a section of the Gowd Sarasawat Brahmins are the disciples of the Mutt.

6. On 24th October 1920, in celebration of the 56th anniversary of the Brahmo Samaj, there was a dinner at which about, 150 people of all castes including Pariahs, Mahomedans and Christians were present. There were also three Gowd Sarasawat Brahmins, two of whom were Messrs M.N. Prabhu (the complainant) and M. Madhava Rao, Vakils practising at Mangalore. The dinner was by invitation and it appears that no Pariah was invited nor were any pariahs named on the list of invited guests. Mr. Prabhu was in the row opposite to the one in which the Pariahs sat. An account of the dinner appeared in the local Vernacular paper - Kantirava (Ex. I dated 26th October 1920). This was followed by a Memorial (Ex. II dated 29th October, 1920) signed by more than a hundred people of the Gowd Saraswat Community to the Muktessars of Sri Venkatramana Temple in Mangalore, calling attention to the report in the paper and to the fact that three members of their community had been present at the dinner and requesting the Muktessars to take action lest those persons should attend the Temple dinners, which were to come off on November 23rd and 25th and there should be a disturbance. The Muktessars then called a meeting (Ex. VIII) for November 2nd and at that meeting a resolution was passed that the memorial should be forwarded to the Swamis of the Kasi and Gokarna Mutts for disposal. The resolution was confirmed at another meeting and the memorial was forwarded by Ex. XIII dated 4th November 1920 to the accused who happened then to be in Mangalore. On the 14th November, Messrs. Frabhu and Madhava Rao addressed Ex. Section to one Mr. Venkoba Rao, (P.W. 12) in which after referring to the caste trouble ' now pending before the Swami of Kasi Mutt' they gave an undertaking not to attend Temple dinners or even enter the Temple premises during the Kartika Pournami celebrations (November) without prejudice to any action they may be advised to take in the matter in future. The nth and 12th witnesses for the prosecution had at about this time two interviews with the accused. The first one was on the invitation or the accused. The second one was three or four days afterwards. Between the two, Mr. Prabhu met Mr. Srinivasa Pai (P.W. 11) and told him of his willingness to do prayaschittam if necessary and to request the Swami not to issue an interdict. P.Ws. 11 and 12 at these interviews did their best to induce the Swami not to take any strong course of action against Mr. Prabhu. Mr. K. Sadasiva Rao, an Advocate of Mangalore also sent Ex. A (dated 16th November 1920) to the Swami on behalf of Messrs Prabhu and Madhava Rao, complaining that the report in the Kantirava was false and malicious (but without giving any particulars as to the matters in respect of which the report was inaccurate) and warning that the Swami will be held wholly and solely responsible in law if he should issue arbitrarily and without full enquiry and before hearing what his clients have to say in the matter, any interdict against them. On the 20th November the accused replied to Ex. XIII by calling for the original memorial and a muchilika (a statement) solemnly affirming the facts stated in the paper. Ex. III dated 20th November 1920, a statement signed by a number of persons confirming the report in the paper was accordingly sent to the accused. The interdicts Exs. F and H were thereupon issued on the 23rd November. They purport to be interim orders and are to remain in force until a second order is issued.