TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1918 (2) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons guilty and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The appellants have been represented in this Court by learned Counsel. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that Section 68 of the Christian Marriage Act does not apply; that Maha Ram was not a Christian at the time of his marriage; and that it is not proved that Bachhan and Mangli solemnised the marriage. The first point, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether Maha Ram was at the time of the marriage a Christian. 3. Act No. XV of 1872 (and specially the section concerned, a section imposing what may amount to a very severe punishment) has, under the well-known rules for construction in such cases, to be so construed that no case be held to fall within it which does not fall both within the reasonable meaning of its terms and within the spirit and scope of the enactment, No violence must be done to its language in order to bring people within it, but rather care must be taken that no one is brought within it who is not within its express language: London County Council v. Ayles-bury Dairy Company (1898) 1 Q.B. 106 : 67 L.J.Q.B. 24 : 77 L.T. 440. 61 J.P. 759. As Ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unable to accept this contention and I hold that the issue which I have to decide is whether Maha Ram at the time when he was married to the daughter of Shib Lal was or was not a person professing the Christian religion. Again I repeat the word "means" which is to be found in Section 3 is an inclusive term and, therefore, no one except a person who professes the Christian religion comes within the purview of Section 68. 7. This drives me back upon the necessity of deciding who is a person who professes the Christian religion. 8. I have not been referred to, nor have I been able to Snd, any precedent which lays down clearly what meaning is to be attached to the words "profession of Christianity. 9. Murray in the Oxford Dictionary, Volume VII (1909), interprets it thus: To affirm or declare one's faith in or an allegiance to; to acknowledge or formally recognise as an object of faith or belief (a religion, principle, rule of action, God, Christ, a saint, etc.) 10. In the case before us we have not to deal with a person of an immature age or one who for any reason is unable to give a reasonable account of the faith that he holds, e, g., an orphan of tender ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge professed Christianity, he does not make the same statement regarding Maha Ram. All that he says about Maha Ram is that his name was entered in the Baptismal Register, which sacrament was apparently administered at the time when Maha Ram was ababe 3 years old, that he never up to the time of his marriage told the witness that he was not a Christian, and that though he has seen him since his marriage he has not denied that he is a Christian. When the witness on one occasion said to him that judging by the clothes he wore no one would take him for a Hindu, he laughed and said "no". The witness got Maha Ram entered in the Industrial School at Farrnkhabad to learn carpentry. He was at the school up to within 2 or 3 days of the wedding. The school is for Christian boys only and witness sent him there as a Christian. This is all upon the point. It does not appear then from the evidence of this witness that Maha Ram ever took part in Church ceremonies such as prayers and the like. 21. The next evidence in point of importance is that of Rev. W.T. Mitchell. He baptised Maha Ram when he was 3 years old. In his examination-in.ohief this witness says that Maha Ram when he was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... school was estopped by his conduct from professing that he was not a Christian. The dressing as a Christian seems also to me very far from being conclusive on this point especially in a class of persons who belong to the Bhangi class. The furthest point urged in this direction by the prosecution is perhaps the writing of letters under the title of Mahbub Masih; but no letter was produced nor was it shown that letters so written were at all of a public nature. On the other hand we have undoubtedly a profession in the case of his performing devi ka puja at the time of his marriage. That act was undoubtedly a profession, an act entirely inconsistent with I might add repugnant to, the view that the person performing it was a person professing the Christian religion I am not satisfied, therefore, that at the time when this marriage was solemnised Maha Ram was a Christian. 26. Holding as I do that Maha Ram was not a Christian at the time of this marriage, it follows that no offence under the Act was committed on the 3rd of June 1917, either by the so called principals Managli and Bachhan or by the abettor Maha Ram. 27. I do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion shows that doubts had arisen as to the validity of certain marriages, and it was clearly intended to facilitate such marriages and to validate them and at the same time to guard them by strict requirements. The legislation is not unlike the Foreign Marriages Act in England. The object of the Act is not to prevent people marrying as they wish, but to enable them to protect themselves and their posterity by a lawful and binding marriage if they wish to be married as Christians. The Ant is to be called the Indian Christian Marriage Act, and, in my opinion, it deals with Christian marriages and Christian marriages alone. In future such marriages can only be lawfully effected under this Act. If they are not solemnized by one of the persons described in Section 5, they are made void--by Section 4. The Act. does not prohibit even a professing Christian from marrying otherwise than under the Act. if he wishes to do so. 32. We, therefore, start with this that there is no express prohibition preventing a professing Christian from doing violence to his faith and marrying a non-Christian by a non-Christian ceremony. His marriage may not be valid by English Law as a Christian marriage in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part in the solemnisation or celebration. This would be contrary to the ordinary mode of interpretation of a Statute, and would produce far--reaching and almost ludicrous results. I do not think the question turns upon the word "solemnize" so much as upon the object and scope of the Act. The case of Queen--Empress v. Paul 20 M. 12 : 1 Weir 820 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N s.) 9 decided in1896 turned on the word "solemnize". The Sessions Judge had acquitted on the ground that the part taken by the Hindu priest did not amount to solemnisation. He seems to me to have been feeling for a way of evading the construction of the Act now contended for and to have seized on the word "solemnisation". The Appellate Court disagreed, but I think their minds were diverted from the real difficulty. They went on to hold that the contracting parties themselves ought to have been convicted, of abetment. As I have said, this is a startling result, and satisfies me that there must be a fallacy in the reasoning which reaches it. I have carefully considered, the recent case of Kolandai Velu v. Dequidt 41 Ind. Cas. 664 : 40 M. 1030 : 33 M.L.J. 113 : 6 L.W. 126 : 22 M.L.T. 163 : (1917) M.....