ORDER.- The petitioner one P. Venkateswara Rao of Gudiwada who styles himself as the Secretary of the Town Kalavantula Sankarana Sangam of Gudivada, moves this Court under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Bandar in C.C.No. 80 of 1949. It has to be stated at the outset that the Public Prosecutor has not moved this Court under section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, by filing an appeal to set aside the order of acquittal. The questions to be decided are firstly whether there are sufficient grounds for interference by me; and secondly even if there are sufficient grounds, whether the order of acquittal should be set aside at the instance of a private individual, however public spirited he might be and however meritorious his act might be, so that he might act as a pro bono publico in the interests, weal and welfare of the general community at large. The complaint against the six respondents in the Court below was that they in contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act (XXXI of 1947), conducted a dancing in a specially erected pandal in front of the office of the first respondent at Gudivada, on the night of 13th April, 1949, between 9 and 12 p.m. The first respondent is the proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Motor Service Co., Gudivada, with an office in the town. Respondents 2 and 3 are unmarried ladies aged 30 and 20 years respectively belonging to Kalavantula community and are said to have dedicated their lives to the profession of dancing. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 are said to have taken part in the dance performance by playing tabela, harmonium and clarionette respectively. What happened was that on the night in question, during the course of the celebration of the Sri Rama Navami festival, a pandal was erected in front of the motor press office of the first respondent and in that pandal were installed coloured pictures of the deities of Sri Rama, Lakshmana, and Sita and it is stated that there was a celebration of the festival on that night. Respondents 2 and 3 are said to have danced before the pictures of deities between the times abovementioned. Respondents 2 and 3 are said to have danced before the pictures of deities between the times abovementioned. The complainant alleges that by dancing before the coloured pictures of the deities temporarily installed for the celebration of the festival in this pandal, the respondents 2 and 3 have committed an offence under section 4 of Madras Act XXXI of 1947 and the other respondents have abetted the commission of that offence. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, on a construction of section 3 (3) of the Act, came to the conclusion that the coloured pictures temporarily installed before which the dancing took place were not idols of deities as contemplated by section 3 (3) of the Act, installed in a temple or a religious institution, and therefore the dancing before such pictures did not contravene the prohibition contained in section 3 (3) of the Act. On this ground the respondents were acquitted. The question is what is the proper construction of section 3(3) of Madras Act XXXI of 1947 which Act, it may be premised, was enacted for the purpose of the welfare of the Kalavantula community so that its members may be weaned from prostitution and be compelled to lead a chaste and pure life. Section 3 (3) of the Act runs as follows: “Dancing by a woman, with or without kumbharathy, in the precincts of any temple or other religious institution, or in any procession of a Hindu deity, idol or object of worship installed in any such temple or institution or at any festival or ceremony held in respect of such deity, idol or object of worship, is hereby declared unlawful.” Analysing this section in its various component parts, it comes to this: (1) Dancing by a woman with or without kumbharathy in the precincts of any temple or other religious institution is hereby declared unlawful; (2) Dancing by a woman with or without kumbharathy in any procession of a Hindu deity, idol or object of worship installed in such temple or institution is declared unlawful; (3) Dancing by a woman with or without kumbharathy at any festival or ceremony held in respect of such a deity, idol or object of worship is declared unlawful. The question is whether respondents 2 and 3 danced at a festival or ceremony in respect of such a deity, idol or object of worship. The emphasis is on the word “such”. The question is whether respondents 2 and 3 danced at a festival or ceremony in respect of such a deity, idol or object of worship. The emphasis is on the word “such”. What the Legislature should be deemed to have contemplated is that the festival or the ceremony must be held in respect of a Hindu deity, idol or object of worship installed in any such temple or religious institution. It is not disputed that the coloured pictures of Sri Rama, Lakshmana and Sita temporarily put up in this pandal cannot be said to be a deity or idol or any object of worship installed in a temple or other religious institution. There is. no case that these pictures were either installed in a temple or were at any time the utsavamurthi as we find in any of these temples. They are simply coloured pictures probably purchased at a cost of a few annas in the market. No consecration has taken place. What the section says is, if a woman dances either within the precincts of the temple in front of the deity, or in front of the idol or other object of worship in the temple or in a procession where the deity, idol or other object of worship is carried out, then such an act is unlawful. It may also be that a festival or a ceremony held elsewhere in honour of such a deity or idol or object of worship is equated to what happens in the temple itself. I do not think that it can be safely predicated that if a private individual, out of devotion and orthodoxy, celebrates the Sri Rama Navami festival either in his own office or in any public place and does pooja to coloured pictures of these Gods, it can be said that his action can be called a festival or a ceremony held in respect of a deity or idol or object of worship installed in the temple. For example supposing a utsavamurthy in a well-known temple is brought out and kept in a particular locality and a festival or religious ceremony is held therein and a dance takes place in front of such a utsavamurthy, then the action would be in contravention of section 3 (3) of the Act. For example supposing a utsavamurthy in a well-known temple is brought out and kept in a particular locality and a festival or religious ceremony is held therein and a dance takes place in front of such a utsavamurthy, then the action would be in contravention of section 3 (3) of the Act. As I find that the respondents have not contravened the provisions of section 3 (3) of the Act, in my view the learned Additional First Class Magistrate was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondents of any offence whatever. However laudatory the action of the petitioner might be in trying to bring to the notice of Court instances which, according to him, are prohibited by law, I am afraid Courts cannot countenance prosecution for actions which cannot be held to be illegal. In the view which I take that the order of the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified, the second question whether I should interfere at the instance of a private party does not arise. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.