115-NLR-NLR-V-31-KING-v.-NERENCHA.pdf
(423 )
Present : Akbar J.
KING v. NERENCHA.90—P. C. Jaffna, 6,292.
False information lo Public Servant—Belief that the information istrue—Bona fides—Penal Code, s. 180.
Where a person is charged with giving false information to aGovernment Agent against a Udayar,—
Held, that it would be a good defence that the accused hadreasonable grounds for believing the information to be true.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Jaffna.
Peri Sunderam, for appellant.
Schokman, C.G., for the Crown, respondent.
March 12, 1930. Akbar J.—
The accused has been fined Rs. 50 for giving false, informationto the Government Agent against the Udayar of Navaly undersection 180 of the Ceylon Penal Code. The facts admittedly areas follows: The accused was a witness in a case brought by oneChelliah in 1928 against the Udayar. This was a criminal case formischief and obstruction, but the complainant was referred by theMagistrate to the Civil Court. According to the accused, when hereturned from Court to his village, one Govinden and anotherperson abused him for giving evidence against the Udayar. Theaccused then states that a series of petty thefts was committed againsthis property. In this he is corroborated to some extent by theevidence of the Polioe Vidane. Then on two successive days thePolice Vidane searched his house on the orders of the Udayar for aconcealed case of chickenpox which ended in nothing. The Police
1930
( 424 )
1980
AxBA* J.
King- v.Ntrench a
Vidane states that after his first visit hd reported that there was nocase of chickenpox in the house of the accused. In spite of this theUdayar ordered him to search again the accused’s house. Even thenno case of chickenpox was found. The accused then, apparently atthe end of his patience, asked the question “ have you no confidencein me ? ’ ’ Upon this the accused sent the petition filed in this case tothe Government Agent. It will be observed that the petition is inEnglish, having been typed by a petition drawer. It may be thatthe petition drawer has somewhat exaggerated the complaintmade by the accused, but it seems to me that the petition waswritten in despair asking for relief against the Udayar, and that hehonestly believed that the Udayar was at the bottom of his troubles.In this connection I should like to quote a case decided by theSupreme Court, namely, Gunatileke v. Elisa et al.1. The followingpassage from Shaw J. should, I think, be applied in this case:“ Although I quite agree with the remarks of the present ChiefJustice in Gookson v. Appuhamy 2 of the importance for the protec-tion of the villagers themselves, of punishing false and maliciouspetitioners, I think that the provisions of section 180 should beexercised very sparingly and with great caution in the case ofpetitions against the police to their superior officers, for it is muchbetter that a police superintendent’s time should be occasionallywasted in inquiring into an unfounded charge against one of hissubordinates than . that villagers should be deterred by criminalprosecutions from laying their complaints against the police, whichare necessarily somewhat difficult to prove in a Court of law, befojretheir superior officers for departmental inquiry.” In my opinionthis is not case where the accused acted maliciously, and the resultof prosecuting in cases like these will be to stifle complaints beinglegitimately made by villagers bona fide against police officers.
As Dr. Gour states in Vol. I., page 991:“ If the accused has
reasonable grounds for believing the information given to be truethat is a sufficient defence. ” The question depends on the accused’sbona fides. If he was reckless but honest the section saves him, forthe section was not meant to punish those who blunder into givingfalse information, but those who do it with an ulterior object inview. At the time the accused was abused by Govinden he had awitness with him who is now dead. The petition was given in 1928,and it is unreasonable to expect the accused to prove the truth ofevery word in that petition nearly eighteen months after that date.I think in all the circumstances the accused did not act spitefully insending this petition but only to get relief.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Set aside ^
< SC. w. B. 25.t (tg l j) U .V. L. R. 120.