024-NLR-NLR-V-18-BEBI-v.-TIDIYAS-APPU.pdf
( ai )
Present: Pereira J.1914.
BEBI ». TIDIYAS APPU.1,014—P. C. Tangalla, 2,436.
Maintenance suit—Inculpatory statements made by defendant to policeareadmissible in evidence againsthim—Defendant is not
“ accused,M
Id a proceeding for an order for maintenance under OrdinanceNo. 19 of 1889. the person proceeded against is not in the * positionof an accused party in a criminal case; and inculpatory statementsmade by him to a police officer are therefore not inadmissible inevidence against him.
I
N this case the applicant claimed maintenance from the defend-ant. At the trial the police headman was called among other
witnesses to prove that defendant admitted that he was the fatherof the child.
/ vJ. 8. Jayewardene, for the defendant, appellant.—The admissionas to paternity made by the defendant to the police headman is not.admissible, as it is a confession to a police officer. The Magistratehas been mainly influenced by that inadmissible admission.✓
Balasingham, for respondent.—The proceedings in maintenancecases are civil in their nature and not criminal. See Anita Pererav. Emaliano Nonis.J
Cur. adv. vult.
November 27, 1914. Pekeika J.—
There is abundant evidence to support the conclusion arrived atby the Magistrate on the facts of the case. Objection has beentaken in the petition of appeal, and repeated in the course of the
i mm 12 n. l. r. m.
( 82 )
1914.
Pbbkira J.
Bsbi v.TidiyanAppu
argument of the appeal, that a so-called admission made by thedefendant to a police headman should not have been accepted asevidence. This objection cannot be sustained- The defendantwas guilty of no offence known to the law. Indeed, it has beenheld by this Court that proceedings under the Maintenance Ordi-nance are not in their nature criminal. {4 N. L. B. 4, 4 N. L. R.131, 1 Bal. 106.) The statement to the police offices could not,therefore, be regarded as being tantamount to a confession.
I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.