134-NLR-NLR-V-21-DASSANAYAKA-v.-WIJEWIKREME.pdf
( «1 )
Present: De Sampayo J.
DASSANAYAXA v. WIJEWIKREME.
169—P. G. Kandy, 2,715.
Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865, s. 54.—False information to police relating toan offence not triable summarily.
Where a Police Magistrate inquires into an offence and takesnon-summary proceedings, the same Magistrate cannot deal withthe complainant under section 54 of the Police Ordinance. Butthe fact that the false information given to the police relates to anoffence which was not triable summarily is by itself no bar to aprosecution under section 54 of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of1865, before the Police Court.
Podi Appu o. Pedric Sinno 2 explained.
rjpBE facts are set out in the judgment.
Chenier, C.G., 'for appellant.
March 30, 1920. De Sampayo J.—■
In this case the Solicitor-General appeals from the order acquittingthe accused. There is some confusion both in the report and inthe judgment sheet as regards the charge which the Magistratepurported to deal with. The charge is “ that the accused gave1 {.1917) 20 N. L. S. 286.» {1918) 20 N.L.B. 286.
21/35
1980.
( 472 )
1980.
DbSampato
J.
v. Wife-toickreme
false information to the Galagedara police that he was threatenedby one Babanis Mudalali and robbed of Rs. 8 by one Ukku Bandaknowing the said information to be false, and with the intention ofcausing the said Galagedara police to use their lawful power to theinjury and annoyance of the send men.” One would have thoughtthat the charge was intended to be made under section 180 of thePenal Code, which is in the same terms as those which I have quoted,but the report and the judgment sheet purport to lay the chargeunder section 54 of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865. Thismistake has led to the Magistrate taking a wrong view of the case.He said that as the information given by the accused was as regardsan offence with regard to which non-summary proceedings shouldhave been taken, the accused could not be dealt with under section54 of the Police Ordinance. Apparently the Magistrate had inview the decision of this Court in Podi Appu v. Pedric Sinno.1If that was so, he appears to have misunderstood the decision.The point decided in that case is that where a Police Magistrateinquires into an offence and takes non-summary proceedings, thesame Magistrate should not deal with the complainant undersection 54 of the Police Ordinance. The circumstances of thiscase entirely differ. It seems to me this is a case which comesunder the second class of offences stated in section 54, namely,cases in which a person makes a false or frivolous charge to a policeofficer against another person. In such a case it appears to meimmaterial whether the offence with regard to which the falseinformation is given to a police officer is summarily triable or shouldbe inquired into in non-summary proceedings. The Magistrate,being of the opinion which he expressed, stopped the proceedingsat a certain stage, and entered the order of acquittal, from whichthis appeal is taken. I think he should have continued the pro-ceedings and dealt with the case on the merits. The order ofacquittal is set aside, and the case is remitted to the Police Courtto be proceeded with.
8ent book.» (1918) 20 K. L. B. 265.