101-NLR-NLR-V-53-GUNARATNAM-Appellant-and-MEERALEVVAI-Respondent.pdf
NAG ALrINGAM J.—Gunaratnam ©. Meeralevvat
453
1951Present : Nagalingam J.(tUKAHATNAAI. Appellant, and MBERATjEVYAT. Respondent-s'. C. 49S—M. C. Batticaloa, 11,179
Insult—Mere verbal abuse—No offence—Penal Code, s. 484.
Mere verbal abuse is not by itself punishable as insult under section 484 ofthe Penal Code.
.^^.PPEAL/ from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Batticaloa.
M. D. H. Jayau ardene, for the accused appellant. .
C. T. Olegaseijarctu, for the complainant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 16, 1951. Nagat.ixgam J..—
The appellant in this case was charged on no less than four countshut at the. conclusion of the trial the learned 'Magistrate acquitted himon all but count No. 2, under which the appellant was charged withhaving intentionally insulted the Secretary of the Town Council byaddressing certain words to the Secretary both in English and in Tamil.
The Secretary himself in giving evidence refers to the incident withgreat particularity. According to the Secretary, when he noticed theaccused sitting in the Chairman’s room on the chair intended for theChairman himself, he questioned the clerk in the office to ascertainwhether he had given permission to the accused to sit in the Chairman’schair and having received information that no permission had beengranted he walked up to the accused and told him that that was not theway to behave in a public office. The Secretary says that thereuponthe accused told him, “ You bloody bastard are trying to teach, meoffice manners, you b . . . f -idiot. ” That is all
the evidence that is relevant and pertinent .to the charge of insult.
SWAN J.—Jvhar o. Ramanathan
254
The learned Magistrate expressly refers to the view he formed of theincident, which he summarises correctly by saying, “ Then the wordsof abuse were showered on the Secretary I am in entire agreementwith the Magistrate that the words complained of are mere words ofabuse and nothing more. In these circumstances the charge of insultcannot be sustained, as has been repeatedly held by this Court: Bala-suriya v. Dharmasiri *, Per era v. Fernando 1, Mataregawara o. YaratanipiUnnanse 3, Fernando v. Van Rooyen *, Coder Batcha v. Dunn 5.
I therefore set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Appeal allowed.