075-NLR-NLR-V-39-PEIRIS-v.-FERNANDO.pdf
SOERTSZ J.—Petris v. Fernando.
269
1937
Present: Soertsz J.PEIRIS v. FERNANDO.
682—P. C. Colombo, 9A 81.
False information—Charge under section 180 of the Penal Code—-Information givenin answer to questions by Police Officer—■Criminal Procedure Code, s. 122.A charge of giving false information under section 180 of the PenalCode may be made in respect of a statement made in answer to questionsput by a Police officer in the course of an investigation under section 122of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Jamaldeen v. Caruppen (28 N. L. R. 458) followed ; Sub-Inspector v.Babbi (25 N. L. R. 117) not followed.
^ PPEAL from a conViction by the Police Magistrate of Colombo.
C. R. de Silva (with him Barr Kumarakulasingham), for appellant.
H. W. R. Weerasooriya, C.C., for respondent.December 17, 1937. Soertsz J.—
Cur. adv. vult.
No appeal lies on the facts in this case. The question of law, raised inparagraph 3 (a) of the petition of appeal is that “ that statement which isthe subject of the charge does not constitute such information as is con-templated by section 180 of the Ceylon Penal Code, inasmuch, as it wasmade in the course of an investigation by the Police.
Two charges had been framed against the accused, one under section 180and the other under section 208 of the Penal Code. Both charges relatedto t_.e same false information. The Police Magistrate has not expresslyentered the conviction in this case under section 180 of. the Penal Code,but the fact that he dealt with the case summarily indicates that headdressed himself only to the charge under that section. In the circum-stances of this case, the charge under section 180 did lie, and, in my opinionwas the more appropriate charge. However, it was not contended for theappellant that this was a case which should have been dealt with undersection 208 and not under section 180. The only question, therefore, for-consideration is whether the conviction is bad in law for the reason statedin paragraph 3 (a) of the petition of appeal. In the course of his argu-ment, Mr. Kumar akulasingham amplified the statement in the paragraphreferred to and contended that the false information the accused is saidto have given was given in the course of an investigation carried out by aPolice officer under section 122 of the. Criminal Procedure Code and wasnot volunteered or given voluntarily and that, therefore, section 180 didnot apply because that section is meant to provide against false infor-mation given ex mero motu. In support of this submission the appellantrelied on the case of Sub-Inspector v. Babbi In that case Jayewar-dene A.J. said : “ In my opinion, section 180 only applied to informationvoluntarily given. It does not apply to cases, where the information isdisclosed in the course of the examination of a person by a Police officer.
* zs N. l. r. in.
270
ABRAHAMS C.J.—The King v. Weerasinghe.
or other public servant, especially when the person examined is bound bylaw to * answer truly! all questions put to him ”. He cited a Burmacase in which it was held that “ the plain ordinary meaning of the expres-sion ‘ given information ' is to volunteer information, not to make statementsin answer to questions I am quite unable to follow these observations.Section 180 is couched in very clear t4rms “ whoever gives ….information ” and, in my view, contemplates information however given,whether mero motu or in answer to questions and/or in the course of aninvestigation.
1 find myself in agreement with the view of Drieberg j. in Jamaldeen v.Caruppen *, when he said, “ The fact that a statement was made inanswer to questions may in many cases lend strong support to a defencethat it was made bona fide and with no ulterior motive, but I find itdifficult to hold that in no circumstances can statements made undersection 122 in answer to questions, form the basis of a charge undersection 180 ”.
As pointed out by Drieberg J. in the last paragraph, section 122 (3) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code expressly states that such statements canbe given in evidence in a charge under section 180 of the Penal Code.I say with great respect that I see no justification for the very limitedconstruction sought to be placed in Sub-Inspector of Police v. Babbi (supra)on the last paragraph of section 122 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In my opinion, the appeal fails. I dismiss it.
Affirmed.