117-NLR-NLR-V-65-ABDUL-AZEEZ-and-others-Appellants-and-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Respondnet.pdf
BASNAYAKE, C-J.—Azeez v. Attorney-General
553
1983 Present: Basnayake, C. J., Abeyesundere, J., and G. P. A. Silva, J.
ABDUL AZEEZ and others, Appellants, and THE ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, Respondent .^f?,c.S. G. 799-807159—M.O. Balangoda, 69020
Criminal trespass—“ Intent to annoy "—Penal Code, «. 421.
The 1st accused asked for permission to enter a tea estate and was not granted
■ permission. Despite the refusal, he and the other accused entered'the estate indefiance of the Superintendent whose permission they bad sought. Havingentered without permission, they disobeyed the lawful directions of an Inspectorof Police not to proceed further. The 1st accused, when he gave evidence atthe trial, admitted that he entered without permission and pleaded that hedid so in order to persuade ce. tain labourers to give up the “satyagraha” whichthey were performing in connection with their strike on the estate.
Held, that the entry of the accused after permission to enter had been askedfor and not granted by the Superintendent brought the accused within theambit of section 427 of the Penal Code relating to “ criminal trespass
Appeals from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Balangoda.
V. Perera, Q.C., with (Miss) Maureen Seneviratne, for Accused-Appellants.
H. B. White, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 28,1963. Basnayake, C.J.—
These appeals were heard by a Bench of three Judges in accordancewith an order in that behalf made by me under section 48A of theCourts Ordinance.
At the conclusion of the hearing we dismissed the appeals and statedthat our reasons would be delivered, on a later date. We accordinglydeliver our reasons now.
The charges against the accused alleged that they were members of anunlawful assembly the common object of which Was to commit criminaltrespass, and that in prosecution of the common object they did commitcriminal trespass by entering Pettiagala Estate. They were found guiltyand sentenced to a term of one month’s rigorous imprisonment on the1st charge, a term oftwo months’ rigorous imprisonment on the 2nd charge,and a term of one month’s rigoroas imprisonment on the 3rd charge,the sentences to run concurrently.
Briefly the facts are as follows :—The facts alleged in the three chargesoccurred on Pettiagala Estate in Balangoda on 4th. February 1959. Astrike among the Tamil labourers of the estate had at the material datebeen going on for two months. Some of the strikers were also performing“ Satyagraha ” in the premises of the Superintendent’s bungalow. Thelxv—24
2£ 16605-1,855 (3/64)
554BASNAYAEE, C J.—Am* «, ^Aornetf-Gmerai
1st accused tv as at the material date the President and the 2nd accusedwas a Joint Secretary of the Democratic 'Wcdbase’ Oosgreea. th&Jkdand 4th accused were members of itTTIfrecutive Committee, the 5 thaccused was its Treasurer, the 6th accused was the Balangoda DistrictRepresentative of that body, the 7th accused was the District Secretary,and the 8th accused was a member of the District Executive Committee.The 9th accused was not an office-bearer of the Congress. Ee joinedthe others on the estate.
It would appear that on 1st February 1959 the 1st accused telephonedthe Superintendent and asked for permission to enter the estate, but wasrefused permission. Despite bhaf he and the others entered the estate.When the Superintendent was informed of their entry he informedthe Balangoda Police Station, The Inspector of Police was out at thetime ; but he arrived on the estate a little while later in the course of aroutine patrol and was informed of the forcible entry of the accused. Eeimmediately went in the direction of the estate factory to which point theaccused were proceeding and intercepted them and ordered them to stop.After a brief consultation with the others the 1st accused told theInspector that they meant to go ahead. They were then informed thatthey would be arrested if they did so. But as they persisted they wereall arrested and charged. The 1st accused gave evidence. He admittedthe entry without permission and pleaded that he did so in order topersuade those who were engaged in “ satyagraha ” to give it up as hethought that there would he violence if anything happened to the“ satyagrahis ” in consequence of their fasting.
The entry of the accused after permission to enter had been asked forand not granted by the Superintendent in our opinion brings the accusedwithin the ambit of section 427 of the Penal Code. That section reads—
" Whoever enters into or upon property in the occupation ofanother with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult, orannoy any person in occupation of such property, or having lawfullyentered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there withintent thereby to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or withintent to commit an offence, is said to commit ‘ criminal trespass ”
The intent of the accused is one that has to be inferred from the circum-stances of the case. In the instant case the 1st accused asked forpermission to enter the estate and was not granted permission. Despitethat he and the others entered the estate clearly in defiance of theSuperintendent whose permission they had sought.
Having entered without permission, they disobeyed the lawful directionsof the Inspector not to proceed farther. The question jus whether thelearned Magistrate was wrong in inferring from those circumstances anintent to annoy the person in occupation as alleged in the charges. In
our opinion he committed no error in doing so.
Abbysans nan*, J,—I agree.
& P. A, §J£YA, J.—I agree.
jsgpmla dimiwd.