134-NLR-NLR-V-22-LANGRAM-v.-NILAME.pdf
( 445 )
Present: Bertram C. J.
LANGE.AM v. NILAME.
686—P. 0. Avissaivella, 82,497.
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 81 — Order to give security to keep thepeace—“ Wrongful act.”
In section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the word“wrongful” means “wrongful in law” and not “open tocriticism ” or “ deserving of reprehension.”
t | ''BE facts appear from the judgment.
Ameresekera, for the appellant.
September 17, 1920. Bertram C.J.—
This is an appeal against an order of the Magistrate under section81 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the appellant toexecute a bond for keeping the peace under that section. In thecircumstances of the case, the question I have to consider is of anacademical nature, as the particular emergency, for the purposesof which a bond was ordered, has now passed. It appears thatthere was a perahera proceeding or about to proceed at the Villageof Medagoda, and the Police Magistrate, in the discharge of hisgeneral responsibility for maintaining order in his division, hadmade certain arrangements for the conduct of the perahera. Thereappear to have been disputes as to the title of certain personsinterested in lands in the village, and as to the obligations tocarry out certain temple services in connection with these lands.The Magistrate, after holding an informal inquiry, had issuedcertain orders on the subject, and in pursuance of these orderscertain kapuralas were to perform certain ceremonies for thepurpose of the perahera.
The information which was given to the Police Magistrate, andunder which he purports to act in pursuance of section 81, wasgiven to him by the Ratemahatmaya of the district and a Sub-Inspector of Police, and was to the effect that John Nilame, theappellant, had been heard telling the kapuralas not to carry outthe ceremonies on the next day.
The note on the subject is somewhat informal, and in ordinarycircumstances no doubt the Magistrate would have seen that amere formal entry of this information was made stating what it wasprecisely that was complained of.
It appears from the subsequent proceedings that the basis ofthe complaint was that the appellant was likely to do a wrong-ful act, and that what was conceived as a wrongful act wasthe instigating of the kapuralas not to perform the ceremonies
1920.
( 446 )
1920.
Bbbtram
C.J.
Langramv* Nilame
in pursuance of the arrangements which the Magistrate hadmade* The Magistrate held an inquiry, and he appears to havebeen satisfied that the appellant did, in fact, attempt to dissuadethe kapuralas from carrying out the ceremonies, and uponthat he ordered the appellant to execute a bond. His note is asfollows: “ His instigation of the kapuralas constitutes a wrongfulact, which may have induced other people on either side to breakthe peace.” This note is not precisely expressed; and apparentlycontains clerical errors. The order of conviction is also somewhatinexact.
It recites that “ John Nilame Medagoda is convicted of thefollowing offence, that he did on August 14 a wrongful act thatmight probably occasion a breach of the peace by telling thekapuralas of the Medagoda Dewale not to carry out the ceremoniesin the temple in presence of the large congregation, the chiefheadman, and the chief police officers.”
The order made by the Magistrate is clearly irregular. He appearsto have misapprehended the meaning of the words “ wrongful act.”The word “ wrongful” must mean ££ wrongful in law,” and not£< open to criticism ” or £e deserving of reprehension.” It wasnot necessarily wrongful in law for the appellant to dissuadesome one not to carry out the Magistrate’s arrangements, thoughthese arrangements may have been of an appropriate and desirablecharacter. It must be shown that the act apprehended was eitherin breach of the criminal law or in breach of some person’s civilrights. If it were shown that the kapuralas were, under a.definitelegal obligation to perform certain services, then it might no doubtbe possible to justify the attempt to dissuade the kapuralas fromperforming these services being made the basis of the proceedings.But this is not established. Further, it must be shown that thewrongful act would probably occasion a breach of *the peace.The Magistrate may upon his own knowledge of the district haveformed the conclusion that if the kapuralas did not carry out thearrangements some disturbance was likely to take place. But Ithink in such a case he ought to have formally recorded evidenceof the fact. The real infirmity is that it is not shown that theattempt to dissuade the kapuralas was a wrongful act.
The mere fact that the man has committed a wrongful act doesnot necessarily justify the apprehension that it will be repeated.In the present case I think the circumstances were such thatif the act was wrongful, the Magistrate might very well havetreated it as one which was likely to be repeated. As, however,it is not wrongful within the meaning of the section, I need notfurther discuss that aspect of the case. It is sufficient ta say thatthe order is-based upon a misapprehension of the law, and that thebond* if it has already been executed, must be cancelled,
Setaside.