1. The first point taken is that the act for which the petitioner was convicted does not fall within the order passed under Criminal Procedure Code Section 144.
2. It is true that the order mentions a specific act, but it also includes all acts of the same kind by the general words, 'in any way interfering with the conduct of the Adyapakam service.' I think that these words sufficiently define the acts from which the petitioner was required to abstain and thus renders them 'certain' within the meaning of Section 144. I may also point out that the petitioner as trustee had powers of management over the temple and its property and the act done was within those powers, and the order as regards, him may be read as directing him 'to take certain order' in the management of the temple.
3. I think that the case falls within Ramanadhan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti 2 Weir 92 and I have some doubt as to the decision in Abayeswari Debi v. Sidheswari Debi 8 Ind. Dec. 179
4. The learned Magistrate seems to have made a slip as to the liability of defence 4th witness in his discussion of the credibility of that witness, but there was sufficient evidence on which he could act, and I do not think (hat this vitiates his decision.
5. The conviction of the petitioner for the act complained of is also questioned, but I see no reason to differ from the Magistrate in his conclusion. The fine is not excessive. The petition is dismissed.