minal Appeal No 49 of 1956
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 13 1954 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision Case No 267 and 1954 154 1212 Criminal Revision Petition No 249 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated January 12 1954 of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge as Tiruchirapalli in Criminal Revision Petition No 17 of 1953
R Ganapathy Iyer and G Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
No one appeared for the respondents
August 25
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J
The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the petition of complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under section 295 of the Indian Penal Code
The courts below have taken the view that it did not and on that ground it stood summarily dismissed before evidence pro and con had been recorded
It appears that the appellant filed a petition of complaint in the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate Tiruchirappalli against the respondents three in number
The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the first accused is the leader of Dravida Kazakam a community of persons who profess to be religious reformers one of whose creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship and as such be was out to  vilify a certain section of the Hindu community and do propaganda by holding meetings and writing articles
 It is further alleged in the petition of complaint that  recently the first accused announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa the God sacred to the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community on 27th May 1953 in a public meeting at Town Hall
This caused terror commotion in the mind of the Saivite Section of the Hindu Community
 The complainant claims to be a Saivite
The complainant further alleged in his petition that on May 27 1953 at about 5 30 pm the accused broke an idol of God Ganesa in public at the Town Hall Maidan and before breaking the idol lie made a speech and expressly stated that he intended to insult the feelings of the Hindu community by breaking the idol of God 1213 Ganesa
The said act of breaking the idol was alleged to have been actively abetted by instigation and aid by the other two accused persons who also made speeches
The petition of complaint also alleged that the said act of breaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention of insulting the religious feelings of certain sections of the Hindu community who hold God Ganesa in veneration and that the acts complained of amounted to offences under sections 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code
On those allegations the petition of complaint dated June 5 1953 prayed that processes might issue against the three accused persons
In the list of witnesses appended to the petition figured the Additional District Magistrate the Sub Divisional Magistrate the Town Sub Inspector of police Tiruchi Fort and Sub Magistrate Tiruchy Town
On the same date the learned magistrate examined the complainant on oath
The complainant made statements in support of his allegations in the petition of complaint
Thereupon the learned magistrate directed that the petition of complaint be sent to the Circle Inspector of police Trichy for inquiry and report under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code
On June 26 1953 on receipt of the police report which  showed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place it was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount to any offence  the learned magistrate passed his order dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code
In the course of his order the learned magistrate observed as follows The mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been broken by accused is not an object held sacred or worshipped by any class of persons
Simply because it resembled the God Ganesa held in veneration by a section it cannot become an object hold sacred
Even Ganesa idol abandoned by the people as unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it is no longer an object held sacred by anybody since such given up idols are found in several places of defilement
It is not an offence if a person treads union any such abandoned idol
Therefore the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa 1214 does not amount to an offence under Section 295 Indian Penal Code  The speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a community no doubt amount to an offence under Section 295 A Indian Penal Code
But for laying a complaint under this section the sanction of the Government is necessary
This section has been clearly mentioned in the complaint and it cannot be said it was included by oversight
Without a proper sanction an offence under this section is unsustainable
I therefore see no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and I dismiss the same under section 203 Criminal Procedure Code
 The complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirappalli by his petition in revision filed on July 9 1953 under sections 435 and 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint
In the petition filed in the Court of Session the complainant stated that the petition was confined to the complaint in respect of the alleged offence under section 295 Indian Penal Code and that it did not seek to revise the order of dismissal of the complaint in respect of an offence tinder section 295 A of the Indian Penal Code
The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition by an order dated January 12 1954 holding in agreement with the learned magistrate that the acts complained of did not amount to an offence under section 295 Indian Penal Code
In the course of his order the learned Sessions Judge made the following observations  I agree with the learned Magistrate that the acts complained of do not amount to an offence
The accused who profess to be religious reformers in a campaign against idolatory organized a public meeting at which they broke an earthern image of the God Ganesa
The particular image broken was the private property of the accused and was not in itself an object held sacred by any class of persons nor do I think that idol breaking by a non believer can reasonably be regarded by a believer as an insult to his religion  and the ingredients of Section 295 Indian Penal Code are therefore not made out
 1215 The complainant then moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of that Court
The learned single Judge also agreed with the courts below in the reasons given by them for dismissing the petition of complaint and refused to order further inquiry
In the course of his judgment he discussed the question whether a mud image of God Ganesa came within the scope of the words  any object held
sacred by any class of persons  in section 295 and he answered the question in the negative
In this connection he referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Queen Empress vs Imam Ali 1 which is directly an authority for this proposition only that the word object  in section 295 of the Indian Penal Code does not include animate objects
That case dealt with the complaint of killing a cow
Edge C J in the course of his judgment made an observation that the word  object  should be interpreted ejusdem generis with the words place of worship  and by way of an example of such an inanimate object he mentioned an idol
That observation if anything is not against the complainant
The learned single Judge also referred to the case of Romesh Chunder Sannyal vs Hiru Mondal 2 which also is not in point inasmuch as it dealt with the case of a dedicated bull
But the learned Judge seemed to draw from those cases the inference which may be stated in his own words as follows  Interpreted like that it would mean that the section would apply only to cases where an idol in a temple is sought to be destroyed damaged or defiled
The words any object held sacred by any class of persons  even otherwise will apply only to idols in a temple or when they are carried out in processions on festival occasions
The object held sacred  will mean only the idols inside the temple and when they are taken out in processions on festival occasions
In such circumstances as in the present case the breaking is nothing more than a doll taken from the shop
1 All 150
2 Cal
1216 Though the intention of the respondents may be to decry the feelings and wound the susceptibilities of a large section of the people still the intention alone is not sufficient unless it is carried out by an act which must fall within the scope of this section
The dolls in the shop though they may resemble several of the deities in the temple cannot be held to be objects held sacred by any class of persons
In modern society there are several images of the deities in the drawing rooms of several houses
It cannot for a moment be suggested that these images are objects held sacred
These have got to be distinguished from the objects held sacred which can only be when they are duly installed in a temple and from which they are subsequently taken out in procession on festival occasions
What was broken therefore by the respondents is nothing more than a doll taken either from a shop or made for the occasion and it cannot by any means be called ail object held sacred
The offence is not made out and the dismissal is therefore justified
 The petitioner moved the High Court for the necessary certificate of fitness for making an appeal to this Court
The learned Judge who had heard the case on merits also dealt with this application and refused to certify that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court under article 1341c of the Constitution
The petitioner moved this Court and obtained the necessary special leave to appeal
It is regrettable that the respondents have remained ex parts in this Court
The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the courts below had unduly restricted the meaning of the words of section 295 particularly the words  any object held sacred by any class of persons  and that the words have been used in their fullest amplitude by the Legislature in order to include any object consecrated or otherwise which is held sacred by any class of persons not necessarily belonging to a different religion or creed
In the first place whether any object is held sacred by any class of persons must depend upon the evidence in the case so also the effect of the words  with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class 1217 of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement as an insult to their religion
 In this case the facts alleged in the petition do not appear to have been controverted but the learned magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court have thrown out the petition of complaint solely on the ground that the image of God Ganesa treated by the respondents as alleged by the complainant could not be said to be held sacred by any class of persons
In the instant case the insult alleged was by destruction of the image of God Ganesa
Apart from the question of evidence which had yet to be adduced it is a well knonwn fact that the image of Lord Ganesa or any objective representation of a similar kind is held sacred by certain classes of Hindus even though the image may not have been consecrated
The learned Judge in the Court below has given much too restricted a meaning to the words any object held sacred by any class of persons  by holding that only idols in temples or idols carried in processions on festival occasions are meant to be included within those words
There are no such express words of limitation in section 295 of the Indian Penal code and in our opinion the learned Judge has clearly misdirected himself in importing those words of limitation
Idols are only illustrative of those words
A sacred book like the Bible or the Koran or the Granth Saheb is clearly within the ambit of those general words
If the courts below were right in their interpretation of the crucial words in section 295 the burning or otherwise destroying or defiling such sacred books will not come within the Purview of the penal statute
In our opinion placing such a restricted interpretation on the words of such general import is against all established canons of construction
Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section
Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object in order 1218 to be held sacred should have been actually worshipped
An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them
It is clear therefore that the courts below were rather cynical in so lightly brushing aside the religious susceptibilities of that class of persons to which the complainant claims to belong
The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds
Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs or whether they are rational or otherwise in the opinion of the court
As a result of  these considerations it must be held that the courts below have erred in their interpretation of the crucial words of section 295 of the Indian Penal Code
But the question still remains whether even after expressing our strong disagreement with the interpretation of the section by the courts below this Court should direct a further inquiry into the complaint which has stood dismissed for the last about 5 ears
The action complained of against the accused persons if true was foolish to put it mildly but as the case has become stale we do not direct further inquiry into this complaint
If there is a recurrence of such a foolish behaviour on the part of any section of the community we have no doubt that those charged with the duty of maintaining law and order will apply the law in the sense in which we have interpreted the law
The appeal is therefore dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Respondent executed certain works under a written agreement with the appellant and a dispute arose thereunder which was referred to arbitration
The arbitrator made an award which was filed in Court
The appellant raised several objections which were all overruled by the Trial Court and the award was made a rule of the Court
The appellant there upon appealed to the High Court under section 39 of the Arbitration Act which was rejected
Hence this appeal by the appellant
The Court did not find any substance in the objections raised by the appellant except the one taken by him regard ing the power of the arbitrator to grant interest
Therefore the question that arose for determination by the Court was whether the arbitrator was competent to award interest and if so in respect of which period and further in the circum stances of the case from which date the proceedings before the Arbitrator should be deemed to have commenced
Partly allowing the appeal on that question this Court HELD Since the reference in this case was made in March 198L no objection can be taken to that part of the award whereby the respondent has been allowed the claim of inter est for the earlier period
368F See Executive Engineer Irrigation Balimela and Ors
vs Abliaduta Jena and Others 1988 1 SCC 418 and Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union of India The arbitrator in the present case was appointed on i631982
He after being informed about his appointment directed the parties to submit their statements of claim by the 20th April 1982
The actual 367 date when this order was made is not known
369E So for as an action in a Court of law is concerned it must be held that it commences on the filing of a proper claim in accordance with the prescribed procedure before the authority empowered to receive the same
No reason is seen to apply a different approach in the case of arbitration proceedings
As soon as the arbitrator indicates his will ingness to act as such the proceeding must be held to commence
370A C The arbitrator in the present case by directing on 20482 the parties to file their statements of claim clearly indicated that he accepted the  offer to arbitrate
The proceeding must therefore be deemed to have been instituted not later than this date
370D The award so far as it allowed interest for the period after 20482 is without jurisdiction and must be excluded
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part
370E Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs Unique Erec tors Gujarat P Ltd  Anr
   lossi foglu vs Coumantaros and Hari Shankar Lal vs Shambhunath Prasad  Ors   referred to