JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a complainant's appeal against an order dated 31-8-1962, passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Bonai, acquitting the Respondents of the charge u/s 3 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, (Central Act No. 22) 1955. 2. The complainant is a was herman by caste. According to him an Astaprahari Kirton was held in village jamakoie on 12-2-1962 to which the villagers and the neighboring villagers were also invited to perform Namasankirtan. About 150 persons including the complainant came to attend the function. When the complainant and one of his companions arrived at the place, they were prevented by the accused persons from participating in the function on the ground that they were Dhobies and belong to Harijan class. The complainant protested, but to no effect Thereafter he lodged the present complaint. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of a denial. Their case was that the function was a private one held by D.W. 2. Khirod Bhoi and they had no hand in the matter and in any case the function was held in the private premises of D.W. 2 and it was never a place of public worship as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. 4. The learned Magistrate held that though the function was not held exclusively at the expenses of D.W. 2, yet this being a private function not being held at a place of public worship Section 3 of Act 22 of 1955 had no application to such a case. He thus acquitted the accused persons and it is against this order of acquittal the present appeal has been filed. 5. Both parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The complainant has examined himself and two others in support of his exclusion from the function. 6. That it was purely a private function confined to D.W. 2 and some others cannot be doubted. P.W. 1 has admitted that the function was held in a place partly owned by D.W. 2 and partly by the public, and only those whom invitations were issued did attend the function and Dhobies as a class were not excluded from attending the function. P.W. 1 has stated that Dhobies as a class were not specially invited to the function and he was not in a position to say if other Dhobies of adjoining villages attended the function. P.W. 1 has stated that Dhobies as a class were not specially invited to the function and he was not in a position to say if other Dhobies of adjoining villages attended the function. The evidence of P.W. 2 discloses that the invitations were issued according to choice. P.W. 8 also was not in a position to say if the place of function was a public or a private one. 7. Coming to the defence case, D.W. 2 Khirod Bhoi has stated that the Astaprahari was held at his own place and at his own cost and he invited people of his own choice and there was no question of excluding any was herman as such, as he invited Lambodar Sethi, belonging to the same caste as that of the complainant and he joined that function. Though he took the assistance of the Pallimangal Samiti, it was his private and not a public function. D.W. 1 the President of the Pallimangal Samiti has stated that the function was held at the expenses of D.W. 2 at his own place. Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidence, it must beheld that the Astaprahari function was a private one of D.W. 2 and the invitations were restricted to people of his choice and the villager as such had no right to get into the place where the Kirton was being held. Thus, there is no question of any exclusion of the complainant from the function on the basis of his caste. Assuming that he was excluded from the function, it was not because of his caste but for other reasons. 8. Section 3 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 applies to a case where a person is prevented from entering into a place of public worship on the ground that he was untouchable Section 2(d) defines a "place of public worship" as a place which is used as a place of public religious worship or which is dedicated generally to, or is used generally by, persons professing any religion or belonging to any religious denomination or any section thereof, for the performance of any religious service, or for offering prayers therein. In the present case, it has been established on evidence that the Astaprahari was being held in the premises of D.W. 2 and it was purely a private function and in no sense the place can be called a place of public worship within the meaning of Section 3. Merely because the host permitted others, to come and attend the function, would not give any right to the complainant or for the matter of that anybody else to join he function as of right, nor would it convert the religious ceremony to one of public character. 9. P.W. 1 had stated in his evidence that he was not allowed to participate in the function of Sankirtan as he belonged to a Harijan class. The word 'Harijan' obviously refers to all untouchable. 'Untouchability' has not been defined anywhere either in the Act 22 of 1955 which punishes untouchability as an offence, nor in Article 17 of the Constitution which directs abolition of untouchability and forbids its practice in any form and declares that enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. In its broad sense we understand the word to import a sort of social disability that certain classes of people suffer by reason of their birth in particular castes. It was contended that in the Scheduled Castes Order 1950, issued under Article 341 of the Constitution, the Dhobas in Orissa have been named as a scheduled caste. The complainant no doubt belongs to the Dhoba caste which has been noted as a scheduled caste in the said order, but that would not necessarily make him an untouchable for the purpose of Act 22 of 1955. That apart to constitute an offence u/s 3, what is necessary to prove is that the prevention was from offering any prayers 01 performing any religious ceremony in a place of public worship and the prevention must be from doing the said acts to the same extent and in the same manner as is permissible to other persons of the same religion or religious denominations or a section thereof as the person prevented and it must be on the grounds of untouchability. 10. As we have seen above, the first condition that it was a place of public religious worship has not been made out in this case. 10. As we have seen above, the first condition that it was a place of public religious worship has not been made out in this case. Further it has been found that the prevention if any of the complainant was not on the basis of his being an 'untouchable' as people of his caste were allowed to participate in the function such as Lambodar Sethi. Therefore there was no discrimination on the basis of his caste. In view of the aforesaid position a case u/s 3 of Act 22 of 1955 has not been made out against the accused-Respondents. In the result, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed