Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Murtaza Husain, J.
D.P.TITUS - Appellant
Versus
L.W.LYALL - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 04/25/1980
CRIMINAL TRESPASS - SECTION 441, I. P. C. - SECTION 448, I. P. C. - SECTION 295, I. P. C. - Entry into property with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property - Continuing in possession of property in bona fide assertion of right - Not guilty of criminal trespass - Notice under Section 441, I. P. C. must specify a date by which the person called upon to vacate has to vacate the property.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was running a nursery school and a charitable dispensary in a church building belonging to the Methodist Church of Southern Asia. The complainant, the District Superintendent of Methodist Churches in Southern Asia, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent was using the premises for secular purposes, thereby hurting the religious feelings of the Christian community and committing offences under Sections 295 and 448, I. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was not guilty of any offence under Sections 295 and 448, I. P. C. The court held that the respondent's entry into the church building was lawful and that he was continuing in possession of the premises in bona fide assertion of his right. The court also found that the notice issued to the respondent under Section 441, I. P. C. was defective as it did not specify a date by which the respondent had to vacate the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's entry into the church building was lawful and whether he was continuing in possession of the premises in bona fide assertion of his right? 2. Whether the notice issued to the respondent under Section 441, I. P. C. was defective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent's entry into the church building was lawful and that he was continuing in possession of the premises in bona fide assertion of his right. The court relied on the fact that the respondent had been running a nursery school and a charitable dispensary in the premises since 1955, with the knowledge of the Methodist Mission. The court also noted that the respondent had invested a lot of money in the premises and had been claiming the same from the Church administration. 2. The court held that the notice issued to the respondent under Section 441, I. P. C. was defective as it did not specify a date by which the respondent had to vacate the premises. The court relied on its earlier decisions in Ram Swarup v. State and Mansingh v. State, in which it had held that a notice under Section 441, I. P. C. must specify a particular date by which the accused has to leave the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by a complainant after obtaining special leave from this Court against the order dated 11-5-78 passed by a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Lucknow whereby he has acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 295 and 448, I. P. C.
( 2 ) A Church building, with appurtenant residential quarters and open compound, lies in Mohalla saadatganj in the city of Lucknow. These premises undis-putedly belong to Methodist Church of southern Asia. In these premises the respondent was running a nursery school and a charitable dispensary since before the filing of the complaint which has given rise to this appeal. The complainant appellant, D. P. Titus, is the District Superintendent of Methodist Churches in southern Asia. He filed a complaint with the allegations that in the year 1955 the respondent was appointed Pastor of Saadatganj Church which was consecrated property for worship by the christians. It was entrusted to the respondent in the aforesaid capacity in order to hold regular prayers in the worship hall of the Church and to maintain the same for religious purposes. It was contended that in contravention of the directions issued to the respondent he was using the premises for secular purposes by opening a nursery school and feelings of Christian community were outraged through the conversion of the church into a secular institution. It was added that the respondent was transferred by the Bishop of Lucknow Annual Conference in 1964 from saadatganj Church to Lucknow Christian College and Rev. Ghulam Qadir was appointed to succeed him, but the respondent neither handed over charge to him nor vacated the premises. A registered notice was issued to the respondent, but he did not comply with it. It was thus contended that offences under Sections 295 and 448, I. P. C. were committed.
( 3 ) THE stand taken by the respondent in the trial court was that Saadatganj Church had ceased to remain a Church for worship purposes and it was lying neglected. The respondent was running a nursery school and a charitable dispensary in it and was serving the humanity within the knowledge of the officebearers of Methodist Church in Southern Asia. He maintained that he had neither hurt the religious feelings of the members of Christian community, nor he had committed any criminal trespass over the church property. The validity of the notice issued by the complainant was also questioned by the respondent. The complainant examined six witnesses in support of his case including himself. The respondent examined one Chandrika Prasad in his defence. After considering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate found no force in the allegations of the complaint. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by that acquittal, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.
( 4 ) THE acquittal of the respondent ordered by the learned Magistrate under Section 295, I. P. C. has not been seriously challenged before me and rightly so, because that section contemplates destroying, damaging or defiling any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider this destruction, damages or defilement as an insult to their religion. There is no evidence in the present case to make out these ingredients. The respondent is not said to have destroyed, damaged or denied the premises in question. On complainants own showing he is simply running a nursery school and a charitable dispensary therein. It is not alleged that he had done anything with the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons. It is needless to point out that the respondent himself is a christian and was considered by the Bishop of Lucknow Annual Conference to be a fit person to hold the post of the Pastor of a church. It is difficult to believe that a person of his pos
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
