V(I$ZS) J?.£*Nfi. 69.
Jamaldeen V.Oamppen
( 402 )
injured man said Imd seen him stabbed, and it was made to aheadman; it was not one made under section 122 of the Code, andthe effect of the proviso to section 122 (3) was not considered.There is also the case of The Emperor v. Naga Aung Potl referredto by Jayewardene J. in his judgment in Sub-Inspector of Police v.Babbi (supra), in which it was held that the expression “ give infor-mation ” means volunteering information and does not extendto answers given to questions put by a public servant. Thereport of this case is not available.
Very little purpose is served by an examination of the Indian lawon this point owing to the very great points of differencebetween the Indian and Ceylon enactments, of which it is notnecessary to state more than one namely, that there.is no expressprovision in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code enabling statementsmade to police officers in investigations under section 161 to be usedin evidence in a charge under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.It should also be noted that whereas our section 122 (2) requires aperson questioned to answer truly all questions put to him, the wordtk truly ” is omitted from the corresponding section of the IndianCriminal Procedure Code, with the result that there is in India nolegal obligation on a witness to speak the truth in a police investi-gation, except possibly in the limited cases mentioned in section 202and 203 of the Indian Penal Code. Sohonifs Criminal Procedure Code,10th ed,t p. 352.
The fact that a statement was made in answer to questions mayin many cases lend strong support to a defence that it was madebona fide and with no ulterior motive, hut I find it difficult to holdthat; in no circumstances can statements made under section 122,in answer to questions, form the basis of a charge under section 180when there is express provision . that such statements can be givenin evidence in a charge under-that section..
If this is so it will be possible for a person to arrange for the initialcomplaint under section 121 (1) to be given by another; thisinformation might be limited to a bare statement of the commissionof the offence without mention of persons charged so as not tocompromise the informant; and thereafter falsely charge personsat the police investigation, with immunity from prosecution undersection 180; it may rightly be said that a statement made in-thesecircumstances is voluntary.
As I am of opinion that the conviction is right if the statement heregarded as one made under section 122, I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.