055-NLR-NLR-V-54-CALDERA-Appellant-and-IMBULDENIYA-S.I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Caldera v. Imbuldeniya
229
1952Present: Swan J.CALDERA, Appellant, and IMBTJLDENXYA (S. I. Police), RespondentS. C. 1,131—M. C. Colombo, 18,314
Criminal intimidation—Threat to cause death or grievous hurt—Jurisdiction of Magis-trate's Court—Penal Code, ss. 483, 486.
A Magistrate’s Court has jurisdiction to try a case of criminal intimidation ifthe threat was to cause death hut the accused was unarmed and not in a posi-’ tion to cause death or grievous hurt and the threat could not have been utteredwith any other intent than to cause alarm.
_/^_PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
M. M. Kumarakulasingham-, with J. C. Thttrairatnam, for the accusedappellant.
Cecil Gooneioardene, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 21, 1952. Swan J.—
The accused-appellant was charged in this case with criminal trespassand intimidation under Sections 434 and 486 of the Penal Code. Hewas found guilty on both counts and sentenced to one month’s rigorousimprisonment on the first count and to four months’ rigorous imprison-ment on the second count, the sentences to rim concurrently.
The only point taken by learned Counsel for the appellant was that theMagistrate had no jurisdiction to try the charge of intimidationinasmuch as the threat was to kill the husband of the woman who wasintimidated. I shall quote the exact wording of the second charge :—
“ 2. At the same time and place aforesaid the above-named accuseddid commit -criminal intimidation to J. Carline Perera of HokandaraNorth by threatening to kill her husband with intent to alarm, andthereby committed an offence punishable under Section 486 (Chapter15). ”
The point taken is by no means new. It was raised, as far as I cangather, before Grenier J. in the case of Simeon Appuhamy v. VelunSingTio 1. Said His Lordship :—
“ In the schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code, I find that theDistrict Court and not the Police Court has jurisdiction to try a case1 (1911) 5 S. C. D. 56.
230
SWAN J.—Caldera, v. Imbuldeniya
of intimidation if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt. Inthe present case the threat "was clearly to cause death and the PoliceCourt had therefore no jurisdiction. ”
Grenier J. quashed the conviction and sent the case back “ for pro-ceedings to he taken according to law ”.
It should be noted that the threat to kill was made to the complainantSimeon Appuhamy.'
The next reported case involving the same point is Peter Gunaratnev. Allis Sinno x, where de Sampayo J. held that a threat to shoot whichproceeds from a person who is not armed with a gun does not amountto a threat to cause death or grievous hurt within the meaning of Section486.
In the course of his judgment Sampayo J. remarked :—
“ It is argued on this evidence that this is a threat to cause deathor grievous hurt to the complainant within the meaning of the latterportion of Section 486, but the circumstances do not seem to indicatethat the threat was of that description. The accused, as a matter offact, had no gun or weapon in his hand, but his attitude would seemto have caused alarm to the complainant and made him believe thataccused was determined to do some sort of bodily injury to him butnot necessarily kill him or cause grievous hurt ; and after all the gistof the offence is threatening another with injury to his person withintent to cause alarm. The element necessary in this connectionwas supplied by the evidence and there is no necessity to emphasisethe fact that the words used by the accused were that he would shoot.On the whole I think the case has been sufficiently dealt with, and Iam unable to interfere with the conviction either upon its merits orupon the objection taken.
I dismiss the appeal. ”
We now come to the ease of Fernando v. de Vas -, where the objectiontaken was double-barrelled, so to say. It was contended that if thethreat to kill was serious the Police Court had no jurisdiction ; if it wasnot taken seriously it would not amount to intimidation. Ly all-Grantwho heard the appeal observed :—
“ I think, however, that there is a via media by which a threat ofthe kind used in this case can be dealt with under the Section.Although the accused admittedly was proved to have used the words•' J will kill you 5, he was not armed and it is a reasonable inferencefrom the evidence that the complainant was not under the apprehensionof death or of grievous hurt. At the same time, the fact that the manso obviously lost his temper that he came in front of the shop andabused the complainant for some minutes and uttered threats wassufficient to cause alarm : the act must be construed as having beendone with intent to cause alarm, and that being so, it is an act withinthe definition of criminal intimidation under Section 483 of the PenalCode. ”~
1 (1913) 1 Cr. A. R. 16.2 (1928) 9 C. L. Rec. 67..
TT A. DE SILVA J.—Gaebele v. Commissioner of Stamps
231
Tn the present case the threat complained of by Oarline Perera wasto kill not her but her husband. The facts reveal that the husbandwas not there when the threat was uttered nor is there any evidence toshow that the accused was armed, or to put it in other words, that hewas in a position to cause death or grievous hurt either to Carline Pereraor her husband. In the circumstances the threat could not have beenuttered with any other intent than to cause alarm to Carline Perera.In my opinion the charge was properly laid in the Magistrate’s Court.The objection therefore fails.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.