167-NLR-NLR-V-47-RAMAN-Appellant-and-THE-SUPERINTENDENT-OF-POLICE-HATTON-Respondent.pdf
474 WIJEYhiWARDENE J.—Raman v. The Superintendent af Police, Hatton.
1946Present: Wijeyewardene J.
RAMAN, Appellant, and THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,HATTON, Respondent.
986—M. C., Hatton, 8,711, with Application for Revision.
Criminal intimidation—Evidence of threat to a person’s properly—PenalCode, ss. 483, 486.
Where the accused was charged with having committed orimin&lintimidation by threatening M, a labourer, with injury to his propertyand the evidence on whieh the accused was convicted was that theaccused had threatened to set fire to the shed where M and his fellowlabourers worked—
Held, that the shed could not be regarded as the property of M withinthe meaning of section 483 of the Penal Code.
A
PPEAL, with application for revision, against a conviction fromthe Magistrate’s Court, Hatton.
L. A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him S. P. Wijeyewickreme), for the accused,appellant.
A. C. M. Ameer, C.C., for the Crown.
Cur. adv. wit.
September 25, 1946. Wijeyewaedene J.—
The accused was convicted on two counts under sections 486 and 433of the Penal Code and sentenced to one month’s rigorous imprisonmenton each count. The accused was undefended at the trial.
The first count charged the accused with having committed criminalintimidation “ by threatening one Muttukaruppen of Dee Side Estatewith injury to his property ”. The second count was that the accusedcommitted criminal trespass r< by entering into Dee Side Estate withintent to commit criminal intimidation ” as set out in the first count.
The evidence of Muttukaruppen on which the finding of the Magistrateis based was that the labourers who wgve members of a certain Congresswere observing hartal on the day in question. The accused was a memberof the Congress employed on Brunswick estate. He went to Dee Sideestate and finding that Muttukaruppen, a labourer of Dee Side estate
WeJcuvagoda v. De A hois.
475
who was not a member of the Congress, was working “ at a nurseryon the Dee Side estate ” said, “ Go away. Do not work WhenMnttukaruppen refused to comply with his request, the accused “ threat-ened to set fire to the shed ” where Muttukaruppen and bis fellowlabourers worked. Mr. Ameer invited my attention to Regina v. Orim-ivade1. That case held that a house occupied by a person under anagreement for a number of years could be regarded as the house of thatperson within the meaning of 4 Goo. IV. c. 54, s. 3. That case cannot beregarded as an authority for holding that the shed where Muttukaruppenand his fellow labourers worked is the property of Muttukaruppen withinthe meaning of section 483 of the Penal Code, and, therefore the convictionon this first count must fail. I may add also that the Magistrate had nojurisdiction to try the accused summarily on that count as the threat ofthe accused according to Muttukaruppen was “ to cause the destructionof the property by fire ” (vide the First Schedule to the CriminalProcedure Code).
The conviction on the second count must fail as the “ offence ” whichthe accused intended to commit is the “ offence ” set out in the firstcount and that is not an offence within the meaning of the Penal Code(vide sections 38 and 433 of the Penal Code).
I acquit the accused.
Accused acquitted.