EMPEROR Vs. MAHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Maha Ram who described himself as son of Kallu by caste a sweeper, Mangli, son of Sundar, sweeper, and Bachhan, son of Laiq, sweeper, have been convicted of an offence under Section 68 of Act No. XV of 1872. In the ease of Maha Ram Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is to be read with Section 88 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 bhangi, and that Bachhan and Mangli ^were mans, or so-called priests of the sweaper class, who solemnized the marriage according to bhangi rites. The assessors gave it as their opinion that Maha Ram was not a Christian and that therefore no 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 solemnized the marriage. The first point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether Maha Earn was at the time of the marriage a Christian.

(3.) Act No. XV of 1872, and specially the section concerned, which is 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 cases be held to fall within it which do not fall both within the reasonable moaning 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: The London County Council v. Aylesbury Dairy Company (1898) 1 Q. B., 106. As Abbott, C. J., pointed out in Proctor v. Manwaring (1819) 3 Bam and Ald., 145, it is not competent to a court to extend the words by construction.