101-NLR-NLR-V-58-D.-A.-SAMARANAYAKE-Petitioner-and-V.-GRENIER-et-al.-Respondents.pdf
1957Presctil: Sansoni, J.
I). A. SAMARANAYAKE, Petitioner, and V. GRENIERet al., Respondents
S. G. 462—Application for a- Writ of Certiorari
liribery Act Ko. 11 oj 105 !—Sections 5 and 10— “Arraignment ”—Criminal ProcedureCode, s. 210.
The word “ arraignment ” is not a synonym for “ indictmentTiio petitioner who was convicted by a Board of Inquiry appointed untierthe Bribery Act alleged that the Board of Inquiry acted without jurisdictionin holding its inquiry. Tho allegation was based on tho plea that the Attorney-General had not signed the arraignment ns required by section 5 of tho BriberyAct. In support of this plea thcro wns ptoduced n document entitled Arraign-ment before a Board of Inquiry and signed by a Crown Counsel for the Attorney-General. Tho document was nothing more than the concise statement of. tho particulars of tli'o charge laid against tho accused. In an affidavit of tlioCrown Counsel who had signed tho statement it- was declared (1) that theAttorney-General was satisfied on tho mntcrial available to him that thero wasa prime facie case of bribery made out against tho petitioner, and decided to
arraign him bcforo n Board of Inquiry on tlvo charges contained in tho concisestatement, (2) that tho statement was signed by Crovrn Counsel at tho instanceand on the directions of tlio Attorney-General..
Held, thr.t tho affidavit established that tho Attorney-General himselfarraigned the petitioner.
A PPLICATION for a writ of certiorari.
K.KatnaJanalhan, with V. K. Pal as it ntheram, for the petitioner.
St. G. B. Jansze, Q G., Solicitor-General, with V. S. A. Pitllenayegum,Crown Counsel, as amicus curiae.'
Cur. adv. vult.
February 28, 1957. Saxsoxi, J.—
The petitioner has applied to this Court for a Writ of Certiorari tohave the order of a Board of Inquiry appointed under the Bribery ActNo. 11 of 1954 quashed. By that order the Board found the petitioner,who was a Police Constable, guilty of the offence of bribery. Theground of the present application is that the Board of Inquiry actedwithout jurisdiction in holding its inquiry.
Under section 5 of the Act the Attorney-General has the power, ifhe is satisfied that there is a prima facie case of bribery and the offenderis a public servant, to arraign the offender before a Board of Inquiry.Under section 10 the offender is entitled to be furnished with a concisestatement of the particulars of the charge.
The allegation that the Board of Inquiry acted without jurisdictionis based on tho petitioner’s plea that the Attorney-General liasnot signed the arraignment, and in support of that plea there has beenannexed to the petition a copy of a document entitled Arraignmentbefore a Board of Inquiry. I think this plea arises from a misappre-hension as to what an arraignment is. Wharton’s Law Lexicon definesthe word “ arraign ” as follows :—“ to bring a prisoner to the bar ofthe Court to answer tho matter charged upon him in the indictment.The arraignment of a prisoner consists of three parts, (1) calling himto the bar, and by holding up his hand or otherwise, making it appearthat he is the party indicted. Holding up the hand is a mere ceremony,and is frequently dispensed with, it only being necessary for the prisonerto admit that he is the person indicted. (2) reading the indictmentt'^him distinctly in English, that he may fully understand the charge.
(3) demanding whether he is guilty or not guilty, and entering his plea,and then demanding how he will be tried, the common answer to which is,
“ By God and my country ”, The Criminal Procedure Code in section219 refers to the arraignment of an accused in a trial before the SupremeCourt and the draftsman of that section seems to have had in mind thisdefinition of the word “ arraignment ”, for the section reads :—
“ When the court is ready to commence tho trial the accused shallappear or be brought before it and the indictment shall be read andexplained to him and he shall be asked whether he is guilty or notguilty of the offence charged ”.
The petitioner’s Counsel referred me to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,but there again the word “arraign” is defined as “ to put a thing in orderor in its place; as a prisoner is said to be arraigned when he is indictedand put to his trial The procedure is described there also as theappearance of the accused and his pleading to the indictmentor other record. I think it is a misuse of language to treatthe word “ arraignment ” as a synonym for “ indictment
The entire proceeding takes place in three stages. The machineryshould, in my view, be set in motion by the Attorney-General himself,but I do not consider it necessary that the Attorney-General shouldpersonally appear and take part at each of these three stages.
The document referred to and relied on in the petition as an arraign-ment, and which lias been signed by a Crown Counsel for the Attorney-General, is nothing more than the concise statement of the particularsof the charge mentioned in section 10. That section does not requiresuch a statement to be signed by the Attorney-General. X have beenreferred to my judgment in Attorney-General v. William1. In that casemy brother de Silva and I held that an indictment signed by a CrownCounsel did not satisfy the requirements of sections 5 (a) and 8 whichrequire the Attorney-General himself to indict a person for bribery inthe case of a prosecution in any Court. The petitioner’s Counsel usedthis judgment to support his argument that the concise statement of theparticulars of the charge should have been signed by the Attorney-General himself. In view of wliat I conceive to be the true meaning of- the word “ arraign ” which, I repeat, docs not mean indict, the petitionershould have established that the Attorney-General did not arraign himbefore the Board of Inquiry. He cannot establish this in view of theaffidavit of the Crown Counsel who signed the statement of the parti-culars of the charge. It is stated in that affidavit that the Attorney-General was satisfied on the material available to him that there was aprima facie case of bribery made out against the petitioner, and decidedto arraign him before a Board of Inquiry on the charges contained inthe concise statement, and that statement was signed by Crown Counselat the instance and on the directions of the Attorney-General. Thisaffidavit establishes that the Attorney-General himself arraigned thepetitioner, and this application must therefore fail.
In view of my finding on this point, it is not necessary for me toconsider the other objections urged by the Solicitor-General, name!the delay of two years between the order of the Board and the filing ofthe application, and the submission by the petitioner to the jurisdictionof the Board.
The application is dismissed with costs.
{195-5) 57 y. L. It. 9.