( 406 )
Present: Lascelles C.J.
ASANAR v. ANDREW.593—C. R. Trincomalee, 4,159.
Contempt of court—False evidence—Civil Procedure Code. s. 800—OathsOrdinance, s. 12.
A false statement may in some cases be so transparently falseas to be disrespectful to the Court and to amount to a contempt.But a false statement unaccompanied by any special circumstancesof this nature does not amount to a contempt of court within themeaning of Part LX. of the Civil Procedure Code; it is an offencepunishable under section 12 of1 the Oaths Ordinance of 1895.
fjl HE facts appear in the judgment.
Tambyah, for the appellant.—The appellant has not committed acontempt of court, punishable under section 800 of the Civil Proce-dure Code, by making the false statement. Seadoris v. Leneris.1
van Langenberg, K.C., S.-G., for the Cro.wn.—The contemptis punishable under section 12 pf the Oaths Ordinance. Thepunishment will have to be varied in that case. Counsel referred toRamanathan, 1872—76, 109; 2 8. C. C. 8.
August 23, 1912. Lascelles C.J.—
In this case the appellant was, at the conclusion of the case,charged by the Commissioner for giving false evidence by statingon oath or affirmation that the defendant signed the plaintiff’sbook when the account was looked into. The appellant admittedthat his statement was untrue, but stated, to quote his own words," I admit that I lied, but it happened a long time ago.” On thatthe learned Commissioner convicted him under section 800 of theCivil Procedure Code, and sentenced him to two months’ rigorousimprisonment. Now, it has been held several times in this Courtthat a mere false statement on oath does not amount to a contemptof court punishable under section 800 of the Civil Procedure Code.A false statement may in some cases be so transparently false as tobe disrespectful to the Court, and so amount to a contempt. Buta false statement unaccompanied by any special circumstances ofthis nature does not amount to a contempt of court within themeaning of Part LX. of the Civil Procedure Code. The authoritieson the point are to be found in the case reported in 5 N. L. R. 89;2 S. C. C. 8; Ramanathan, 1872-76, 109. The appellant isclearly liable to conviction under section 12 of the Oaths Ordinanceof 1895, and I set aside the conviction in the Court below andsentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 30, and in default of payment torigorous imprisonment for two months.
1 (1901) 5 N. L. R. 89.
ASANAR v. ANDREW