MAHA RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maha Ram, who described himself as son of Kallu, by caste a sweeper, Mangli son of Sunder, sweeper, and Bachhan son of Laiq, sweeper, have been convicted of an offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872. In the case of Maha Ram Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is to be read with Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that Maha Ram is a Christian; that on the 3rd of June 1917 he was married to the daughter of one Shib Lal a Bhangi and that Bachhan and Mangli were "Mans" or so--called priests of the sweeper class who solemnised the marriage according to Bhangi rites. The assessors gave it as their opinion that Maha Ram was not a Christian and that therefore nc offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872 had been committed. The learned Sessions Judge, however, was of a different opinion. He found the accused persons guilty and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The appellants have been represented in this Court by learned Counsel. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that Section 68 of the Christian Marriage Act does not apply; that Maha Ram was not a Christian at the time of his marriage; and that it is not proved that Bachhan and Mangli solemnised the marriage. The first point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether Maha Ram was at the time of the marriage a Christian.

(3.) Act No. XV of 1872 (and specially the section concerned, a section imposing what may amount to a very severe punishment) has, under the well-known rules for construction in such cases, to be so construed that no case be held to fall within it which does not fall both within the reasonable meaning of its terms and within the spirit and scope of the enactment, No violence must be done to its language in order to bring people within it, but rather care must be taken that no one is brought within it who is not within its express language: London County Council v. Ayles-bury Dairy Company (1898) 1 Q.B. 106 : 67 L.J.Q.B. 24 : 77 L.T. 440. 61 J.P. 759. As Abbott, C.J., pointed out in Proctor v. Manwaring (1819) 3 B. and Ald. 145 at p. 148 : 106 E.R. 616 it is not competent to a Court to extend the words by construction.