( 14 •)
January 16and 16.
SINNATAMBY v. VEERAKATTI.
P. C., Battioaloa, 15,037.
Compensation to accused—Criminal Procedure Code, s. 437—False charge ofrobbery—Applicability of s. 437 to non-summary inquiries.
Per Browne, A.J.—The provisions of section 437 of the CriminalProcedure Code apply to non-summary inquiries an well as to summarytrials.
If a creditor seeks to enforce his claim of money due to him bywresting from his debtor his umbrella and seizing his shawl in such amanner as to take money from, or to cause it to fall from a knot in it,he is liable to be convicted of robbery.
N this case of theft the Police Magistrate acquitted the accusedand called upon the complainant to show cause why he should
not be ordered to pay Bs. 25 as compensation for causing the ruralconstable to arrest the accused, when there was no sufficient groundfor causing such arrest.
The complainant explained that the accused did in fact snatchthe articles in question from him, and that the charge of robberywas true, no less than the charge of assault.
The Police Magistrate ordered the complainant, under section437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pay to the accused Rs. 25as compensation, and in default to undergo thirty days’ simple im-prisonment, holding that the. charge of robbery was tacked on tothe assault that really took pi.-ice in order to have the accusedarrested by the police.
The complainant appealed.
H. Jayawardena, for appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
19th January, 1901. Browne, A.J.—
The decision of .this Court in 5,632, P. C., Point .Pedro, isauthority that the accused who, to enforce his claim from com-plainant of moneys due him; wrested complainant’s umbrella
from him and so held complainant’s shawl as either to take money1901.
from, or to cause it to fall from, a knot in it, was liable to
be convicted of robbery; and hence that his charge was not
It was contended that the words in section 437 of the CriminalProcedure Code, " the Magistrate which (sic) takes cognizance ofthe case,” would make its provisions applicable only to summary-trials and not to non-summary inquiries; but I would, as at presentadvised, consider that its provisions, like those of section 440,would be applicable to. both classes of prosecutions.
And when section 437 authorizes payment of compensation notexceeding Us. 25, T see no reason why a complainant should beordered to pay that sum in every such case, or any more thanwould at the rate of his average earnings fairly compensate theaccused for any loss of time or money he had incurred by hisarrest and in his defence.
Order to pay to accused compensation is set aside.
SINNATAMBAY v. VEERAKATTI