057-NLR-NLR-V-28-PUNCHI-BANDA-KORALA-v.-MARTHELIS.pdf
( 305 )
Present: Dalton J.
PUXCHI BAND A KORALA v. MARTHELIR
)
187—P. C. Matale, 25,622. .
Obstruction io public officer—Use of physical force—Elements of' offence—*Penal Code, s. 183.
The use of physical force is not essential to constitute obstructionwithin the meaning of section 183 of the Penal Code.
A
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate * of Matale:The accused was charged with obstructing a public officer
in the discharge of his public functions. The complainant washolding an inquest over a death, at which certain witnesses weresummoned among whom was a boy, son of the accused/ lb appearsthat while the boy was waiting to give evidence, the accused cameon the scene, abused the inquirer, and took the boy. away, – It was-
19261
( 306 )
1988b
Dai/ton J.
Pttnehi.Banda Ko-rala v.Marthdia
urged on behalf of the accused that there was no obstruction by himWithin the meaning of section 183 of the Penal Code.
Schokman, for accused, appellant.
Rajakarier, for complainant, respondent.
May 18, 1926. Dalton J.—
. The appellant was charged under the provisions of section 183 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code with voluntarily obstructing a publicofficer in the discharge of his public functions. It is admitted inthis case, so far as the appeal is concerned, that the complainant-was a public servant and that at the time this occurrence tookplace he .was acting in the discharge of public functions. He wa6,in fact, an inquirer holding an inquest into a certain death. It•seems that in the course of that inquiry witnesses had been broughtibefore him, including a boy. This boy is the son of the accused.Whilst the boy was waiting to give evidence the accused seems tohave arrived on the scene, violently abused the inquirer, lost histemper, beat the boy, and took him away. The evidence showsthat the boy was anxious to give his evidence. The evidencefurther discloses that the proceedings were interrupted for nearlyone hour owing to the conduct of the accused. It has been urged• on his behalf that there is no obstruction disclosed by these factswithin the meaning of section 183. It was argued in the lower Courtthat there must be some physical force used to constitute obstructionas contemplated by the section, and that argument the Magistrateseems to have accepted. I do not think that the argument wassound. However that may be, the Magistrate goes on to say in viewof the fact that physical force was used to the boy there was obs-truction within the meaning of- the section. The cases cited to mewith regard to previous occurrences that have been before theCourt under this section clearly point out that physical force neednot necessarily be present to constitute obstruction. What the•cases do say is that there must be some overt act done or physicalmeans used. These are the words Lascelles C.J. in the case ofFernando v. Alia Marikar,l which case was followed by WoodBenton J. in Lourenz v. Jayasinghe2 It is true that there is a dis-agreement between Sir Joseph Hutchinson in the cose of HendrickvKirihatny 3 and Wood Renton J. in the case I have referred to,but that disagreement only arose from the particular facts of the•cases which they were dealing with. It is not necessary for me toconsider that here because the facts are entirely different. WoodBenton J. also refers to an English case which clearly shows that
1 1 G. A. G. 173.2 16 A*. L. R. 506.
2 Leader 105.
(mythere may be obstruction without any physical force being used'atall. In Betts t>. Stevens 1 certain parties-were charged-with obstruct-ing a Police Officer in the execution of his duty. In -that case certainconstables were on duty observing and timing the speed- of motorcars driven along a certain road with- a- view to the prosecutionof the drivers of such motor cars as should be travelling at anillegal speed. For that purpose- the beat constable had arranged,what is commonly called, a trap and measured a certain ■ distancealong the road over which they proposed to time the cars.- Thedefendant in that case warned the drivers of- oarswhich wereapproaching that the trap was- there- and thereupon * the^ driversreduced their speed. The constables were thereby prevented from •obtaining such evidence as would be accepted as sufficient in a •Police Court that the drivers of the cars were committing ah offence.It was held by the King's Bench Division (the- bench constitutingof Lord Alverstone C.J., Darling J., and Buoknill J.) that^he defend-ant had wilfully obstructed the constable in the execution^ of his'duty within the meaning of the law. There are the- circumstances;if I may say so, which Lascelles C.J. speaks-of, i.af, an overt act'done but no physical force or means were used such as counselfor the appellant has argued before me must he present. I amunable to accept that argument as sound. In’-my opinion thelearned Magistrate's conclusion was correct, although his reasons-might he wrong. The appeal must be dismissed and the conviction–affirmed.
Abtoeal dismissed..
1988.
Da£ton J*-
PunehiBomin Ko—rwa v,Marthelis'
1 {1010) 1 K- £.