A Magistrate cannot decide a dispute under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code solely on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. The Magistrate is required to receive all evidence produced by the parties and to consider the effect of such evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 147 - RIGHT OF WORSHIP - DISPUTE REGARDING RIGHT OF WORSHIP OF A DEITY IN A TEMPLE - WHETHER A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE CAN BE VALIDLY TAKEN - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 147 (1) AND 147 (1A) - PROCEDURE FOR ENQUIRY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145 - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE TO DECIDE DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVITS.
Fact of the Case:

Dispute over the right to worship Devi Padmawati in the Antariksha Parshwanath temple in Sirpur, Akola, leading to apprehension of breach of peace. Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Swetambari sect claimed right to worship the deity, while Digambari sect claimed exclusive right. Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected Swetambari's evidence and affidavits, finding in favor of Digambaris. Swetambari's revision application was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:

The right to worship in a temple amounts to a right of user of land as explained in section 145 and contemplated by section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A proceeding under section 147 can validly be taken where there is a dispute with regard to a right of worship of a deity in the temple.
Issues: 1. Whether a dispute regarding the right to worship a deity in a temple falls within the purview of section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code? 2. Whether a Magistrate can decide a dispute under section 147 solely on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to worship in a temple is a right to use the temple in a particular manner, and therefore, it becomes a part of the right of user of land, within the meaning of section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Section 147 (1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Magistrate to receive all evidence produced by the parties and to consider the effect of such evidence. The words "provisions of section 145 shall, as far as may be, be applicable in the case of such inquiry" in section 147 (1A) only indicate that other matters of procedure, such as those contained in sub-sections (5), (7), and (9) of section 145, would be applicable to proceedings under section 147. Therefore, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute solely on the basis of affidavits.
Final Decision: The order of the Magistrate deciding the dispute solely on the basis of affidavits is vitiated and liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT-The dispute which is the subject-matter of this revision application is an offshoot of another long standing dispute between Digambari and Swetambari sects of Jains. At Sirpur, taluq Washim, district Akola, there is a temple of Antariksha Parshwanath in which admittedly there is an idol of Devi Padmawati. It is the right to won hip this deity of Devi Padmawati that gave rise to an apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility resulting in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Washim, passing a preliminary order under section 147 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Cede. The party No.1 belonged to Digambari sect of Jains, while the party No.2 belonged to the Swetambari sect. Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate the contention on behalf of the party No. I was that the idol of Devi Padmawati in the said temple has been worshipped exclusively by Digambaris and that the party No.2 have no right of worship of that deity. On the other hand, the party No 2 claimed that the deity of Padmawati was really installed by the Swetambaris and that it was an Adhistayak Devta of Shri Antariksha Parshwanath Maharaj and worshipping of that Devta is an integral part of worshipping of the main deity of Shri Antariksha Parshwana.th Maharaj. Their further case was that tven with regard to this deity of Padmawati, the rights of the Swetambaris and the Digambaris were regulated by an earlier decision given by the Privy Council, arising out of Civil Suit No.4 of 1910, which was reported in Honasa v Kalymchand1.

2. Both parties filed affidavits of several persons and some documents were also filed by them. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate inspected the spot on 16th January 1969 and he found that none of the Alankars of the deity were Swetambari, as, according to him, the silver Chandoda, the brass Nandadeep and bronze bell and the copper plate indicated that they were offerings of Digambari pilgrims. On perusal of the material which was put before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and a part of which consisted of certain statements made by some witnesses in Civil Suit No.4 of 1910, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the Swetambaris had failed to prove that they had purchased the idol because, even though accounts bad been maintained for a long period, there was no evidence to show when the idol was consecrated. He referred to the depositions of certain witnesses in Civil Suit No.4 of 1910 and on the basis of the statements made in that case he came to the conclusion that the idol of Devi Padmawati from its appearance and its condition, belonged to the Digambaris and was a Digambari Goddess. In order to show that the Swetambaris had not worshipped the idol of Devi Padmawati within a period of three months from the date of the preliminary order, the learned Magistrate also referred to certain statements made by one Mulchand Ganeshlal in an earlier proceedings under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He rejected the affidavits filed on behalf of the party No. 2 and found that two witnesses on behalf of the Swetambaris had disowned their deposition and Samshersing and Jagannath Zangoji were the employees of the Swetambaris. The affidavits of other persons Ganeshrao, Mulchand and Chunibhai were also rejected on the ground that they were employees of Swetambaris and he observed that Mulchand had admitted before the Taluq Magistrate in an earlier proceedings under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code that he had only nodding acquaintance with the English language and yet, according to the learned Magistrate, the affidavit has been sworn in English. The entries from the account books filed on behalf of the party No.2 were rejected because, according to the learned Magistrate, there was no evidence corroborating the entries made in the account books. Having thus rejected the affidavits and the documents filed on behalf of the party No.2, the learned Magistrate found that the alleged right had been exercised exclusively by the party No.1 with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis