018-NLR-NLR-V-23-KHAN-v.-PERERA.pdf
( 69 )
Present: De Sampayo J.
KHAN v. PERERA.
792—P. (7. Kalutara, 58,532.
Ordinance No, 35 of 1917—Intermeddling with suUors—Inducing awitness to give evidence in a particular way—Is witness a personhaving business in Court ?
A person who approaches a witness who barf some to giveevidence in a Court and tries to influence him to give evidence in aparticular way is liable to be prosecuted under section 5 of Ordi-nance No. 35 of 1917.
fJIHE facts appear from the judgment.
L. Pereira, for appellant.
September 1, 1921. De Sampayo J.—
The accused has been charged under Ordinance No. 35 of 1917with having accosted one Edmund, who had come to Court to giveevidence in connection with a case to be tried on that day. Itappears that accused’s brother, Kaitan, was charged by a cattleseizer with having obstructed him in the discharge of his duties bypreventing the seizure of an animal. That case was on for trialon June 6 last. The man Edmund, though not summoned asa witness, had come to give evidence for the prosecution. Theaccused had also come as a witness in some other case, but no doubthe knew about the case against his brother fixed for the same day.The charge against liim is that he accosted Edmund and took himto a side and told him to say, when he gave evidence, that the animalwas seized inside Kaitan’s garden and not on the road, meaningthereby that the cattle seizer had no right to seize the animal in suchcircumstances. The accused denies that he spoke to Edmund ortried to induce him to give false evidence. The Magistrate heardthe case fully, and found that the incident happened as stated by theproseention. It is urged, in the first place, on behalf of the accused,that this is not a case which comes under the Ordinance No. 35of 1917, inasmuch as the Ordinance is meant to deal with inter-meddlers with suitors, and did not cover a case of this nature. Butthe actual provision of sectiod 5 is: “ Any person who, withoutproper excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, accosts, or attemptsby words, signs, or otherwise to meddle with, any suitor or otherperson having business, actual or prospective, in any Court, withrespect to Ms suit or business, shall be guilty of an ofience,” &o. Iam not sure that a witness may not be a person having business inCourt.1 Considering the object of thejshole Ordinance, 1 think a
1921.
( TO )1821.
Db SambaVoJ.
Khan t>.Ptftra
witness does come under the description of a person having businessin Court, There is no case on tins point cited to me, but on firstimpression I am of opinion that a person who approaches a witnessand tries to influence him to give a particular piece of evidence isliable to be prosecuted under the section in question. If I am rightin thinking that a witness who comes to give evidence has businessin Court, then the intermeddling in this case was in respect of thebusiness; because the accused is alleged to have attempted toinfluence Edmond with regard to his evidence. In the next place,it is urged that the evidence of the witnesses ought not to beaccepted, and that the whole case is without any substance, and thePolice Magistrate was wrong in convicting the accused on theevidence. I am not prepared to hold that the evidence of Edmundand the other witnesses is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.