Jain Shwetambar Tirth Antriksha Parshwanath

Author(s): Antriksha Parshwanath Sansthan Shirpur
Publisher: Antriksha Parshwanath Sansthan

Page 146

12. Against this judgement, Digambaries had filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Akola, Cri. C. No. 95 of 35, it was dismissed on 28-5-35. The order was completely maintained.
They filed Cri. Revision to the High Court, Cri. Rev. No. 72-B/35. it was allowed on 12-8-35.
13. In 1936, when the Shwetambaries were constructing a Dharamashala on the northern side of the temple, the Digambaries obstructed them forcibly, under Section 107, Cr. P. C. in Cr.No. 7 of 36, in the court of S. D. M. Washim. The Shwetambaries were discharged. The magistrate held that the shwetambaries were entitled to build the Dharamashala, and the Digambaries are not entitled to obstruct the work, by any means, whether peaceful or otherwise. The action of the Shwetambaries was lawful and peaceful. Against this order the Digambaries filed appeal to the Sessions Judge, Akola, Cri. A. No. 361-36, and it was dismissed on 20-2-36.
Similar case was put up for the above incident against the Digambaries. It was Cri. C. No. 6 of 36, under Section 107 Cr. P. C. In that, Digambaries were ordered to execute bonds in Rs. 500/- each, with two sureties for each in like amount for keeping the peace for a period of one year. Against the said order of conviction, the Digambaries had filed an appeal but that was also dismissed on 20-2-67. Therafter, they moved the high Court, in Cri. R. No. 206 of 37, against the said order, but that was summarily dismissed on 18-5-67.
14. in 1959, when the Shwetambaries had undertaken the work of plaster to the Idol, the Digambaris forcibly obstructed. The Police put up cases under sec. 107 Cr. P. C. against Shwetambari in Cri. C. No. 17 of 60, on the file of Taluka Magistrate, Washim. In this case the prosecution filed an application for withdrawal of the case, against Shwetambaries on the ground that they were not the aggressors. The Digambaries resisted the application. They had engaged a private counsel to argue the matter. The prosecutor did not want the Court to allow to withdraw the application to be argued by the private counsel engaged by the Digambaries