S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR versus E.V. RAMASWAMI NAICKER & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1211 · Decided: 25-08-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
S.C.R. 
• 
SUPR8ME COURT REPORTS 
• 
S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR 
• 
v. 
12ll 
E. V. RAMASiVAMI NAIOKER & OTHEJ1S 
(R. P .• SINHA, JAFER IMAM and K. N. WANCHOO .JJ.) 
Insult to Religion-Ingredients of offence-Interpretation of 
slalitte-Duty of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act X LV of I86o), 
s. 295. 
The words "any object held sacred by any class of persons" 
occurring in s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code are of general import 
and cannot be limited to idols in temples or idols carried on 
festival occasions. Not merely idols or sacred books, but any 
other object which is regarded as sacred by any class of persons, 
whether actually worshipped or not, fall within the descrip-
tion. 
Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (r887) I.L.R. IO All. 150 and 
Ramesh Chunder Sannyal v. Him Mondal, (r890) l.L.R. r7 Cal. 
852, considered. 
Consequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition 
of complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol of God 
Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided and abetted 
him with the intention of insulting the religious feeling of the 
co1nplainant and his community \vho held the deity in veneration 
and the trial Magistrate, on receipt of the Police report that the 
alleged occurrence \vas true, dismisied the co1np1aint under 
s. w3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that the break-
ing of a 1nucl image of Ganesa \Vas not an offence under s. 295 
of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions Judge and' the High 
Court in revision, agreeing with the view of the trial Court, 
refused to direct further enquiry : 
Held, that the courts belo\v \Vere clearly in error in inter-
preting s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code in the way they did, 
but since the complaint stood long dismissed, no 
further 
enquiry need l'e directed into the matter. 
Held, fµrther, that the Courts must be circumspect in such 
matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of 
different classes of persons witb different beliefs, whether they 
shared those beliefs or not or whether those beliefs in the 
opii1ion of the Court \vere rational or not. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
.JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 49 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgme.nt and 
order dated October 13, 1954, of the Madras High 
-Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 267 and 1954 
154 
• 
August z5. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
1212 
SUPRE:\fE COURT REP~RTS 
[1959) 
1958 
(Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising 
out of the i·u<lgment a1id or<lcr dated Januarv 12, 1954. 
S. Veerobodrcu1 
.J 
Chlliar 
of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge a~ 
v. 
Tiruchirnpalli in Criminal Revision Petition "No. 17 of 
E. V. Ramaswami 1953. 
l\'aicker ,-<; 
Ot~ers 
Sinl;a }. 
R. G'anapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan, Tor the 
appellant. 
No one appeared for the respondents. 
1958. 
August 25. The ,f udgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
S1NIIA J.-Thc only question for determination in 
this appeal by special lea\·e, is whether the petition of 
complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under s. 295 
of the Indian Penal Code. 
The courts bclo,1· ha,·e 
t.aken the view that it did not, and on that gronnd, it 
stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and 
con had been recorded. 
It appears that the appellant filed a pct.it.ion of 
complaint in the court of the A<lclitional Fi1·st-Class 
)fagistrnte, Tiruchirappalli, against the re8pondcnts, 
three in number. 
The petition of complaint alleged 
inter alia that the first. accused is the leader of Dra vida 
Kazakam (a community of persons who profess t•~ be 
religious teforrners, one of whose creeds is to carry on 
propaganda against idol worship), and as sueh, l:c was 
out to " vilify a certain section of the Hindu conanu-
nity and do propaganda by holding meetings and 
writing articles." lt i~ further alleged in the petition 
of complaint that" recently, the first accused announc-
ed his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, 
the God sacred t-0 the Sai,·a Section of the Hindu 
' 
Community on 2ith '.\fay, 1953, in a public meeting at 
Town Hall. This caused terror-commotion in the 
mind of the Saivitc Section of the Hindu Communitv." 
The complainant claims to be a Sai,·it.c. The c<;m. 
plain:rnt further alleged in his petition t.h1~t on'.\[ ay 27, 
1953, at about 5-30 p.m., the accused broke an idol of 
• 
• 
God G:uicsa in public at the Town Hall Maidan, an<! 
'before breaking the idol, he made a speech, and 
expressly statccl that he intended to insult the foelings

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.