( 383 )
Present: Dalton J.
SILVA v. ABEYSEKERE.39—P. C. Colombo;43,471.
<■Criminal Procedure Code—Voluntary statement of the commission ofoffence—Evidence Ordinance, a. 157.
Where voluntary information, given to a police officer allegingthe commission of an offence, was reduced to writing, evidence ofsuch statement may be given under section 157 of the EvidenceOrdinance.
.^^.PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate ofColombo.
Garvin, for appellant.
Fonseka, C.C., for respondent.
February 15,1929. Dalton J.—
The appellant has been convicted on a charge of selling andpossessing ganja in contravention of the provisions of OrdinanceNo. 8 of 1912. He has appealed against that conviction on theground that illegal evidence had been admitted by the Magistrateand that that illegal evidence has been considered by the Magistratein deciding the case. It appears that after hearing evidence,including the evidence of the complainant, Excise Inspector Silva,the Magistrate called evidence and a witness produced an extractfrom the Information Book, which was the original complaintmade by the Excise Inspector to the police under the provisionsof section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been urgedon behalf of the appellant that this statement made by the Inspectorat the police station was a statement made in the course of aninvestigation under chapter XII. of the Criminal Procedure Code,and, therefore, it was not admissible as evidence, but merely for thepurpose of aiding the Magistrate in the inquiry or trial. The natureof that aid has been dealt with by this Court on a previous occasion,.and it is quite clear that any statement that comes within theprovisions of section 122 (3) is not admissible in evidence. I needonly refer to the case of King v. Cooray1 and the judgment ofMr. Justice Jayewardene in Wickramasinghe v. Fernando.2 It hasbeen urged for the respondent that this complaint to the police bythe Excise Inspector is not a statement made in the course of anyinvestigation under chapter XII., but information alleging the1 28 N. L. R. 74.2 29 E. L. R. 403.
( 384 )
1929 commission of the offence, the receipt of which set® the police officerDai-ton J. or inquirer upon his investigation to the charge. That would seem tobe so if one wbuld read sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 121 of theAbeyaektre Code. This point has, however, already been decided by this Courtand it has been held that a spontaneous statement, such as thiscomplaint by Inspector de Silva made at the police station to apolice officer, is not a statement which falls within section 122 (3) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code, but it is a statement the contentsof which may be given in evidence for the purpose of corroboratingthe complainant’s testimony as to the facts deposed to by himin evidence under the provision of section 157 of the EvidenceOrdinance. The authority to which I refer is King v. Pabilis.1
Under those circumstances it seems quite clear that the statementof the complainant admitted by the Magistrate at the end of thecase was a statement wfiich was properly admissible in evidence.Under the circumstances the ground of appeal cannot be sustained-
As regards the facts of the case, the Magistrate came to theconclusion that the sale and possession of ganja was properly proved.There was evidence to support both conclusions. There is no illegalevidence admitted. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed ancf.the conviction affirmed.
' 25 -V. L. It, 424.
SILVA v. ABEYSEKERE