004-NLR-NLR-V-13-SERAPH-v.-KANDYAH.pdf
( 10 )
June 15,1905
Present: The Hon. Sir Charles P. Layard, Chief Justice.SERAPH v. KANDYAH.
P. C.f Trincomalee, 2,347.
Falsely charging another before a police officer—Charge under s. 208—Penal Code, ss. 180 and 208.
A person falsely charging another before a police officer withhaving committed an offence is punishable under section 208, andshould not be charged under section 180. A Police Magistrate hasno jurisdiction to try the offence.
To establishanoffence undersection208 theprosecution should
prove, besidesthefalsity of thecharge,that theperson who made
that charge knew that there was no just or lawful ground for sucha charge against the person falsely charged by him.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the Police Magistrate of Trinco-malee.
A. Jayewardene, for the appellant.
June 15, 1905. Layard C.J.—
In this casetheappellant hasbeenconvicted of giving false
information withintent to cause apolicesergeantto use his lawful
power to the injury of another person under section 180 of the PenalCode. What the appellant did was to falsely charge to the policesergeant of Trincomalee a certain person with having committedan offence. That is an offence punishable under section 208 of thePenal Code, and it requires that the prosecution should prove,besides the falsity of the charge, that the person who made thatcharge knew that .there was no just or lawful ground for such acharge against the person falsely charged by him.
It has been held in India in a similar case to this, wherein theaccused made a charge to the police officer in which he specified thename of a person whom he charged with having committed anoffence, that the accused committed an offence punishable underthe Indian section similar to our section 208, and not an offencepunishable under the Indian section similar to our section 180.The appellant therefore, in this case, has not committed the offenceof which he has been convicted under section 180, and I am not in aposition, even if I thought it desirable, to amend the conviction andfind him guilty of an offence under section 208, because an offenceunder that section is only triable by the District Court, and the .appellant in this case was summarily tried by the Magistrate. Theconviction and sentence must be set aside, and the appellantacquitted and discharged.'
Appeal allowed.