059-NLR-NLR-V-28-SUB–INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-,-DEHIOWITA-v.-BOTEJU.pdf
( 311 )
Present: Garvin A.C.J.
SUB-INSPECTOB OF POLICE, DEHIOWITA v. BOTEJU.
380—P. G. Avissawella, 11,368.
Buddhist Temple—Public place—Police Ordinance, No. 16 of I860,s. 60 (2).
A Buddhist temple is not a public place within the meaning ofsection 60 (2) of the Police Ordinance.
PPEA.L from a conviction by the Police Magistrate ofAvissawella.
E. G. P. Jayatileke, for accused, appellant.
July 9, 1926. Garvin A.C.J.—
In this case there is no appeal as of right except upon a matter oflaw certified in the petition of appeal. The point taken is thatthere is no evidence that the accused, who was convicted of behavingin a drunk and disorderly manner, did so on a public thoroughfareor in a public place. The general effect of the evidence is that theappellant, who was slightly the worse for liquor, was one of a largeconcourse of Buddhists who collected at a certain Buddhist temple.He appears to have behaved in a troublesome manner and wasarrested by the Police Inspector. The Police Constable states thathe saw him misbehaving and using abusive language at .the turn tothe temple. He was then standing on a path which led to thetemple. The question arises whether a Buddhist temple is a publicplace within .the meaning of section 60 (2) of Ordinance No. 16 of1865. It is contended that a Buddhist temple is not a place towhich the members of the public have access as of right; it is onlyBuddhists who can claim a right to enter a Buddhist temple, andthat right can be exercised only for the purposes of worship. It issaid that the members of the public who Jo not profess the Buddhistreligion have no right to enter a Buddhist temple. Even in thecase of Buddhists themselves, it is said, the temple authorities arevested with certain rights in the control and management whichwould entitle them to exclude from the premises persons whom forgood reason, they think, should not be permitted to enter the premises.It is contended by Counsel that the principle on which WithersJ. acted in the case of Pietersz v. Wiggin,1 if-applied to the case of aBuddhist temple leads to the conclusion that it is not a public placewithin the meaning of the provision under which .the accused was
1989.
* 2 Cey. L. Rep. 111.
( 312 )
1926.
Garvin
A.C.J.
Sub-Inspec-tor of
Police, Dehi-owitav.JBoteju
charged. There-is no evidence that the path which ied to the templeis a public path, or is a path in respect of which the public have suchrights of user as would bring it within the category of a publiethoroughfare, nor in the case of this temple that the conditions as-regards ingress and egress as of right are such as would justify aCourt of Law in holding that it was a public place within the meaningof this section.
The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, and the conviction setaside.
Set azide.