PARAMESWARAN MOOTHATHU Vs. VASUDEVA KURUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the complainant in C. C. No. 85 of 1958 of the Stationary Second Class Magistrate's Court, Alwaye, and it is directed against the judgment acquitting the accused of an offence under S. 3 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 22 of 1955.

(2.) THE complainant's case may be briefly stated: THE first accused is the Sree-Kariakar (chief executive officer), and the second accused, the keezhsanthi, of Thrikkakkara temple. THE complainant's father was an employee of the temple and, according to the complainant, his family had hereditary right to do certain services in the temple. On 2-3-1958 the complainant had taken certain articles, such as rice, molasses, cocoanuts, etc. , to offer a payasanivedyam to the deity in connection with his fathers birthday. He entrusted these to the melsanthi and obtained a receipt. THE complainant then scraped the cocoanuts for preparing the nivedyam and when he was about to take it inside the thidappally (kitchen), the first accused who was standing outside asked him not to enter and said that if he entered the nivedyam would be polluted. Notwithstanding this he entered the thidappally when the second accused who was preparing the nivedyam said that he had been asked not to enter and that by his entry he had polluted the nivedyam. THE accused thus attributed untouchability to him. When he placed the cocoanut inside the thidappally, accused 1 and 2 left the place. On the report of the first accused the Superintendent of the Devaswom (Pw. 1) arrived there in the evening and he auctioned the articles brought by the complainant. According to the complainant, he was entitled to get the nivedyam after it was prepared and offered to the deity and he sustained a loss of Rs. 20/- by the refusal of the accused to prepare the nivedyam and offer it to the idol. He had as much right as the second accused to enter the thidappally and the accused had committed an offence under S. 4 of the Act by saying that he had polluted the nivedyam, thereby attributing untouchability to him. It was also stated in the complaint that the accused did these acts on account of the enmity of the first accused towards the complainant and his family. THE complainant and the Superintendent of the Devaswom were examined for the prosecution and the accused examined the thanthri of the temple as Dw. 1. THE learned Magistrate held that the thidappally of the temple was not a place of public worship, that the thidappally was not open to all the Hindus and that the accused was not prevented from entering the thidappally on account of untouchability. THE accused were accordingly acquitted, and the complainant has brought this appeal by special leave.

(3.) AS none of the ingredients constituting an offence under. S. 3 of the Act has been proved, the prosecution must fail. The acquittal of the accused is therefore confirmed, and the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.