Present: Sirimane, J.D. R. PERERA and another, Appellants, and SUB-INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, MOUNT LAVINIA, Respondent
S. Q. 186-187j1964—M. C. Colombo South, 144651A
Evidence—Criminal case—Proctor's statements from the Bar—Inadmissibility.
A Magistrate must not consider as evidence statements made from the Barby a Proctor regarding instructions received by him from the accused.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, ColomboSouth.
M. M. Kumarakulasingham, for the Accused-Appellants.
K.Abeynayake, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
May 27, 1964. Sirimane, J.—
The two accused were charged with insulting and intimidating oneCarolis Perera on 18.6.61. They denied the charge and the 1st accusedstated in evidence that there was merely an exchange of words over aprevious incident. At this point in the proceedings the learned Magis-trate had taken what Counsel for the appellants described as an extra-ordinary step. He asked Counsel for the defence what his instructionswere in regard to the incident referred to, whether it was before orafter the incident which is the subject-matter of this charge. TheProctor appearing for the accused stated to Court that according to hisinstructions the incident had taken place after June, 1961. The learnedMagistrate has used this information in disbelieving the 1st accused-appellant, for he states in his judgment, “ Only the 1st accused hasgiven evidence in this case and in cross-examination he said that the2nd accused’s brother had assaulted a brother of the complainantbefore June, 1961. This obviously is false. Mr. Quentin Perera saysthat his instructions were that that incident took place after thisincident.”
The learned Magistrate had allowed his mind to be influenced bymatters which were inadmissible in evidence.
I set aside the conviction of the appellants and acquit them.
D. R. PERERA and another, Appellants. and SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOUNT LAVINIA