NAQALDTOAM J.—Packeer v. The Inspector of Police, Pettah
Present: Nagalingam J.PACKEER, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTAH,
S. C. 680—M. C. Colombo, 14,987/B.
Criminal Procedure Code—Section 80—“ Offence 'which involves a breach of thepeace ”—Security for keeping the peace on conviction.
Where a person is convicted, under Section 314 of the Penal Code, of causingsimple hurt, a binding over to keep the peace in terms of Section 80 of theCriminal Procedure Code is a proper order.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
M. JK. Kumarahulasingham, with J. G. Thurairatnam, for the accusedappellant.
A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. wit.
October 16, 1951. Nagalingam J.—
The only point urged on appeal in this case is that the learned Magis-trate was in error in directing the appellant to enter into a bond to keep thepeace in addition to the term of imprisonment imposed on him. Thecontention is that under section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code, unlessthe offence of which the accused is convicted is one which involves a breachof the peace, no order could be made directing a convicted person to enterinto a bond. It has been said that if in consequence of the offence a breachof peace might result then such an offence is not within the purview of thissection but that it must be shown that the offence committed embodies initself as a necessary ingredient the element of a breach of the peace.
The offence of which the accused has been convicted is that of causingsimple hurt under section 314 of the Penal Code. It is no doubt true tosay that the offence of causing hurt does not involve as an ingredient ofthe offence a breach of the peace. Learned Counsel for the appellant,however, submitted that where the offence of rioting is committed,it could be said that that offence involves a breach of the peace.I do not think this submission is correct. The term “ ingredientof the offence ” does not mean anything more than the essentialelement necessary to be established in order to constitute theoffence. In this sense I do not think the offence of rioting itself is one inwhich the element of a breach of peace is involved, for it is not necessaryin order to establish the offence of rioting that it should be proved that abreach of the peace was caused. But in my opinion, what is meant by thephrase “ offence which involves a breach of the peace ” does not meananything more than that the commission of the offence must be attended by
SWAN" J.—Peiria v. Poro/mecmly
a breach of the peace, and I cannot do better than quote Bertram C.J. inthe case of Abeywardena v. Fernando 1 in regard to what should properlybe understood by the term “ breach of the peace ” in this section :
" The peace referred to is the King’s peace. The king is entitled torequire that all persons living under the protection shall not be subjectedto violence in respect of their persons or their property. Any personwho does subject to violence either the person or property of one of theKing’s subjects has committed a breach of the King’s peace. ”
In the present case, there is the fact that the person assaulted was sub-jected to violence in his person, and therefore the .commission of theoffence was attended by a breach of the King’s peace.
This very question was considered by deSampayo J. in Bastian v. Per era 2 ■In that case it was held that where a person was convicted undersection 315 of the Penal Code a binding over to keep the peace in termsof section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a proper order.
I am therefore of opinion that the order directing the appellant to enterinto a bond to keep the peace was perfectly legal. The- appeal istherefore dismissed.
PACKEER Appellant and INSPECTOR OF POLICE ,PETTAH Respondent