Re v. Kurian Thomas Kaseesa — 1954 DIGILAW 6 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The accused, who is the revision petitioner is a priest attached to the Mar Thoma Church in Ayiroor Pakuthy. He was prosecuted for the offence of the unauthorised creation of a place of public worship with a cemetry attached to it in Sy. No. 334/1-B of Ranni Pakuthy in the year 1116 and the continued use of the same as a place of public worship. The question whether this act on the part of the accused amounted to an offence punishable under law, has necessarily to be decided in the light of the law as it stood at that time. Such law is the one embodied in the Travancore Penal Code. By S. 182 of that Code, the unauthorised creation or use of new places of public worship was constituted an offence punishable with the imposition of a fine not exceeding Rs. 500/-. The prosecution of the accused was under this Section. The lower court found the accused guilty of the offence charged against him and accordingly convicted him under S. 182 of the Travancore Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. This revision petition is directed against such conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case was launched by PW.1 the local Proverthicar, who had been authorised by Government, under Ext. A, to prosecute the accused for the alleged offence. From the nature of the defence set up by the accused and also the evidence adduced on his behalf, it is clear that there is a building in Sy. No. 334/1-B and that it has been set apart for the common use of the Marthomite Christians of that place, known by the name of Kalambala. The defence is that the building was not being used as a church or public place of worship, but merely as a prayer hall and a Sunday School. The property itself was acquired under Ext. VI sale deed taken in the names of the trustees of the Marthomite Church at Ayiroor and which is known as the "Chayal Palli". It was this church that was serving the needs of the Marthomites of Kalambala also. This latter place is five to six miles from the Chayal Church at Ayiroor. The property itself was acquired under Ext. VI sale deed taken in the names of the trustees of the Marthomite Church at Ayiroor and which is known as the "Chayal Palli". It was this church that was serving the needs of the Marthomites of Kalambala also. This latter place is five to six miles from the Chayal Church at Ayiroor. Because of the inconvenience felt by the Marthomites of Kalambala, the necessity of a separate church at that place was keenly felt by them, and, on representation being made to the Marthomite Bishop, Rt. Rev. Mathews Mar Athanasios, he gave the letter Ext. G, authorising the Marthomites of Kalambala to apply for Government sanction to erect a church at that place. It is conceded even by the defence that such sanction was necessary for the erection of a place of public worship as per the rules which were then in force. As contemplated by the letter, Ext. G, a formal application for the required sanction was also presented. But sanction was refused. It was in spite of the fact that sanction was thus refused that the accused was utilising the building in Sy. No. 334/1-B as a church for the use of the Marthomites of Kalambala and thus creating it as a place of public worship, according to the prosecution. 3. The consecration of the building in Sy. No. 334/1-B as a church was performed by Rt. Rev. Mathews Mar Athanasios, the Marthomite Bishop, on 29.8.1116. This fact is sworn to by PWs.1 to 4. Of these witnesses, PWs. 2 to 4 are persons belonging to the Christian community having their residences in the neighbourhood of the church in question. The trial court has believed the evidence of these witnesses and has recorded a finding that the building in Sy. No. 334/1-B had really been consecrated as a church in Meenam 1116. That there was such a consecration ceremony to the knowledge of the accused, was clearly admitted by him in a statement given by him on 6.1.1120 before the local Tahsildar in connection with a complaint petition that the compound was being used as a cemetery. Ext. E is that statement. That there was such a consecration ceremony to the knowledge of the accused, was clearly admitted by him in a statement given by him on 6.1.1120 before the local Tahsildar in connection with a complaint petition that the compound was being used as a cemetery. Ext. E is that statement. It has also come out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that ever since the consecration ceremony already referred to this building was being regularly used as a place of public worship by the Marthomites of Kalambala and that the religious ceremonies in connection with such worship were being conducted by the accused. The facts elicited in the cross-examination of DW. 3 who is the secretary of the church of Ayiroor, also go in support of the truth of the version given by the prosecution witnesses. DW. 3 has admitted that the prayers in the building in question are being conducted for the convenience of the Marthomites of Kalambala who find it difficult to go to the Ayiroor church, six miles away, to participate in such ceremonies. There is also the further fact that the compound adjoining this particular building was being used as a cemetery. This fact is spoken to by the defence witnesses. The evidence is that the accused has been officiating as the priest at such ceremonies. 4. The defence suggestion that even without using the building in Sy. No. 334/1-B as a church, the compound could be used as a cemetery is not acceptable on the face of it. It is common ground that cemeteries are generally attached to particular churches. The existence of a cemetery at this particular place taken along with the evidence that the building has been used as a place of worship by the Marthomites of the locality, can only lead to the inference that the building was being really used as a church and the cemetery was attached to this particular church itself. Exts. VII to X have been produced by the defence to show that these annual reports for the years 1945 onwards relating to the several churches of the Marthomite community, do not contain any reference to the existence of a church at Kalambala. Exts. VII to X have been produced by the defence to show that these annual reports for the years 1945 onwards relating to the several churches of the Marthomite community, do not contain any reference to the existence of a church at Kalambala. It is obvious that no such reference could be made in these documents in view of the fact that the required sanction had not been obtained for the use of this particular building as a church. Then there are Exts. II to IV relied on by the defence to show that the ceremonies of baptism and marriage for the Marthomites of Kalambala were being conducted at the Ayiroor Church. Here again it is obvious that such ceremonies which require proper records to be maintained, could not be performed in this particular building so long as the use of the building as a public place of worship was unauthorised. Thus on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case, the conclusion reached by the lower court that the accused had been using this particular building in Sy. No. 334/1-B as a place of public worship by the Marthomites at Kalambala and thus converting it into a church, without having obtained the necessary sanction from Government, is unassailable. That finding has only to be accepted as correct. 5. Explanation I to S.182 of the Travancore Penal Code gives a very comprehensive definition of the expression "Place of public worship" for the purpose of that section. That definition is as follows: "A building consecrated or set apart for habitual use by a religious community or sect, for purposes of common worship, is a place of public worship within the meaning of this section". The exception as given in the section is to the following effect: "A private residence or school not so set apart, shall not be deemed a place of public worship within the meaning of this section, merely by reason of prayers or services being held there." From the evidence in the case it is clear that the place in question is not a private residence or a school set apart for prayers or for the conduct of services of a religious nature. On the other hand, the property itself was acquired in the names of the trustees with the avowed object of establishing a public church there and formal sanction for the same had also been applied for even though such sanction ultimately happened to be refused. From Explanation I to the section it is clear that the consecration of the building as a church is not essential to attract the section. It is sufficient if the building is set apart for habitual use by a religious community or sect for the purposes of common worship. In this particular case there had been the consecration ceremony performed by the Bishop. Subsequently the building had been set apart for the habitual use of the Marthomites at Kalambala who formed a religious sect and such habitual use was for the purpose of common worship. The accused was in charge of the ceremonies in relation to such common worship. In Explanation II to the section it is stated that the conversion of a building which has not been used as a place of public worship into a place of public worship is also within the meaning of the section. Thus there can be no doubt that the accused had been responsible for the setting apart and for the use of the particular building as a place of common worship by the Marthomites of Kalambala and thus converting and creating it into a place of public worship as defined in S. 182 of the Travancore Penal Code. 6. Thus all the elements of the offence under the section have been proved against the accused. The sanction as evidenced by Ext. A is comprehensive enough to sustain the prosecution. Under these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the conviction or with the sentence which cannot in any way be said to be excessive. 7. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.