046-NLR-NLR-V-18-MEEGAHAWATTA-v.-LAZARUS.pdf
( 150 )
[In Revision.]
Present: Wood Renton C.J. and De Sampayo A.J.
MEEGAHAWATTA v. LAZARUS.
P. C. Colombo, 3,715.
Proceedings instituted on a report hy the police—Mag " complainant "be punished for bringing false charge under s. 54 of the Poli<'(Ordinance /
Where proceedings ace instituted in a Police Coart on a reportby the police under section 148 (1) (h) Of the Criminal ProcedureCode, the Police Magistrate has no right to act under section 54 ofthe Police Ordinance, 1865, and sentence the 11 complainant " f<whaving brought a false charge.
Section 54 of the Police Ordinance explained.fJlHE facts appear from the judgment.
van Langenbergf K.C., S*-Q.t for the Crown, referred to Idtoos r.Cassim,1 Mendis v. Carlinahamy,2 Urancris v. Jandris et al.,3 AbdulGafoor v. Carolis* Mailvaganam v. Suwarisf P. C. Matara 300,* also(1877) Ram. 405, 3 Tam. 72.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 24, 1914. Wood Bexdon' C.J.—
This is an application in revision by a complainant who has beensentenced under section 54 of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865.to one month’s simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Bs. 50, orin default to undergo one week's simple imprisonment, for havingfalsely charged a man, Don Lazarus, with having cut him with akatty. The proceedings were instituted on a report by a Sub-Inspector of Police under section. 148 (1) (6) of the Criminal ProcedureCode, and, therefore, the complainant could not have been dealtwith under section 197 of that Code. It is, however, settled (Idroo* r.Gaisim J) that section 54 of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865.is not repealed by the Criminal Procedure Code, and the questionfor decision now is whether it is competeut for the Police Magistrateto punish the complainant under that section. The Solicitor-Generallias, moreover,invited us to construe the scopeof the section as a
» (1898)3 N. L. R. 262.-»(1900) 1Br. 107.
2 (1900)4 N.h. R. 341.»(1898) 4Tamb. 10;
* f1897)3 N.L. U. 80.«(1899) 4Tamb. 7.
1914*
19i4.
Wood
Rbnton C.J.
Metyaha-uxitta v.Lazarus
( 160 )
whole. I would adopt in this connection the language of Bonser C.J.in Oafoor v. Carolis*: —
This section i» a .section which ft is uot easy to understand. Itseems to provide for fonr separate cases: (1) in which a person is givenin charge to a police officer on a false or frivolous charge; (2) in whicha false or frivolous charge is made to a police officer behind the back ofthe accused; (3) in which any information or complaint shall be laid ormade before a police officer and shall uot he further prosecuted; or (4)in which such an information or complaint as is last mentioned isfurther prosecuted, and it appears to the Magistrate by whom lhe easeis heard that there were no sufficient grounds for making the charge.
In the first and second of these classes of cases independentproceedings are necessary, unless the false or frivolous charge reachesthe Police Magistrate. In. the third class independent action isalways ^necessary, as the charge never gets beyond its originalformulation. The word “ prosecuted ” in the third and fourthclasses clearly means “ proceeded with,” and, with all deference tothe obiter dictum of Withers J. to the contrary in Idroos v. Gaeeim*contemplates, in my opinion, the charge being so 44 prosecuted,” nob(bv the police, but by the person making it.
In the present case the charge was ** further prosecuted ” by thepolice, and not by the author of the charge, and, therefore, thePolice Magistrate had, in my opinion, no right to act under section54 of the Police Ordinance, 1865, No. 16 of 1865. Acting inrevision, I would set aside the conviction and the sentence andacquit the complainant.
De Sampayo A.J.—I agree.
Set aside.
♦
1 11900) 1 Br. 107.
2 (1895) 3 N. L. R. 068.