( 291 )
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.PINHAMI ABATCHI v. DINGIRIA.P. C., Kandy, 6,451.
Giving false information to public servant—Requisitesof proof—Penal
Code, s. 180.
To sustain a charge under section 180 of the Ceylon Penal Codeof giving falseinformationto apublic servant, itisnot necessary
that the publicservant towhomfalse informationisgiven should
be induced to do anything or omit to do anything in consequenceof such information, the gist of the offen'ce being the intention orknowledge of the person supplying the information, and not whataction may or may not be taken by the public servant to whomfalse information – is given.
Empress v. Budh Sen (1) followed.
In re Golam (2) dissented from.
PPEAL from a conviction under section 180 of the Penal Code.The facts and arguments sufficiently appear in the judgment.
H. A. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
Cur adv. vvlt.
31st August, 1906. Middleton J.—
This was an appeal from a conviction under section 180 of thePenal Code for giving information to a public1 servant knowing orbelieving it to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to belikely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to do anythingwhich such public servant ought not to do.
The accused having the authority of the real owner to sell ananimal, took it to the headman to obtain a voucher, and representedthat one Ukkuwa, who was with him, was the real owner.
The headman, suspecting something was wrong, refused to givethe certificate. It was contended for accused that if the headmancould have attested the cattle voucher without the real owner’spresence there was no offence; further, that it was not shown thatthis was an act which the headman, should not have done without. the presence of the real owner.
Looking at tfie schedule Forms A and B to the Cattle Ordinance,No. 10 of 1898, it would seem that the signature of the seller or donoris required on Form A and that of the owner to Form B, permit forremoval.
It seems to me therefore that it was necessary that the real ownershould attend before the headman in order to sign the voucher.
(1) I. L. R. 13 All. 351.(2)'/. L. R. 14 Cal. 314.
( 292 )
1900. Two oases were cited by counsel from the Indian Law ReportsAugust 31. showing that the Calcutta Court [In re Oolam (1)] construed theWrT."„., corresponding section in the Indian Code as entire, and that it3. applied to those oases in which the public servant upon the infor-mation supplied to him was induced to do or omit to do somethingwhich might affect some third person, and which he would not havedone if he had known the true state of things.
The Allahabad Court [Empress v. Budh Sen (2)], Straight J. andEdge C.J., however distinctly disagreed with the ruling of theCalcutta Court, and Straight J. thought the section contemplatedas I clearly think it does, two intentions, and. that the criminalitycontemplated by section 182, which is the same as our section 180,does not depend on what is done or omitted to be done by the publicservant on such false information, but what was from the facts thereasonable intention to be inferred on the part of the person whogave the false information. Edge C.J., in agreeing, said: “Theoffence is giving information which the informant knows or believesto be false and his intention thereby to cause, or his believing orknowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the public servant
to doanything which the said public servant ought
not to do.”
I have no hesitation in following the decision of the AllahabadCourt for the reasons given by Straight J. as the right constructionof the section.
In my opinion the false information was given by the accused thatUkkuwa was the real owner, intending that the headman ‘ shouldtake his signature thereto on the voucher as the real owner and toact on that supposition, which he ought not to have done, and wouldnot presumably have thought of doing, if the false information hadnot been given.
I uphold the conviction and dismiss the appeal.
a) I. L. P. 14 Cal. 314.
(2) I. L. R. 13 All. 361.
PINHAMI ARATCHI v. DINGIRIA