134-NLR-NLR-V-54-EDMUND-PERERA-Appellant-and-VELOE-Sub-Inspector-of-Police-Respondent.pdf
SWAN J.—Per era v. Veloe
551
1953Present: Swan J.
EDMUND PERERA, Appellant, and VELOE (Sub-Inspectorof Police), Respondent
S. G. 966—M. C. GampaJm, 6,411
Charge of uttering obscene words—Sinhalese words— Judicial notice of their meaning—Penal Code, s. 287.
Where, in a prosecution for uttering obscene words in a public place, the allegedobscene words are Sinhalese words, their English meaning should be set out inthe proceedings.
A pPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Gampaha.Frederick W. Obeyesekere, for the accused appellant.
R. de FonseJca, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney- General.
Cur adv. vult.
March 2, 1953. Swan J.—
The accused was charged with having uttered certain obscene wordsin a public place to the annoyance of Sub-Inspector Saparamadu and others.In the plaint the alleged obscene words which presumably are Sinhalesewords, even which fact I am not supposed to know, are written in Englishcharacters. What these words mean in English the report and charge donot set out. Sub-Inspector Saparamadu in his evidence repeated the samewords, adding something more. He did not give the English meaning ofthose words, nor did he even say that they were obscene. The accuseddenied that he uttered the words imputed to him and stated that he saidsomething else, which again has not been translated. The learnedMagistrate in convicting the accused says that the accused Uttered“ most indecent and disgusting words ” adding that if it had not beenfor the presence of the Inspector he had no doubt that the accused“ would have continued in the free flow of foul language ”.
In order to hold that the words were obscene the learned Magistratemust have acted as his own interpreter which this Court, in a series ofjudgments, has held a judge cannot do. English is the language of ourCourts and in the case of Ismail v. Thangiah1 my brother Gratiaen held
1 {1949) SO N. L. B. 357.
552
PU LLB J".—Piyadasa v. Herath
that any other language is a “ foreign ” language within the meaning* ofSection 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In that case my learnedbrother came to the conclusion that the word “ document ” in Section301 (2) was wide enough to include a written report initiating criminal pro-ceedings. And that is exactly how this prosecution was launched. Althoughthe learned Magistrate presumably was a Sinhalese himself and knew themeaning of the alleged obscene words he could not have taken judicialnotice of their obscenity because Section 57 (9) of the Evidence Ordinancepermits judicial notice to be taken of the meaning of only English words.
The conviction is quashed. The Police are at liberty to initiate fresh pro-ceedings upon a proper report; and, in that event, the learned Magistratewho hears the case will be well advised if he insists on expert evidence ofthe meaning of the alleged obscene words, although their meaning may bequite transparent to him as it is to me.
Conviction quashed.