028-NLR-NLR-V-33-SUB-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE,-TANGALLA-v.-DHARMA-BANDU.pdf
1X4 MACDONELL C.J.—Sub-Inspector of Police. Tangalla v. Dharmabandu.
1931
Present: Macdonell C.J.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANGALLA v. DHABMA-
BANDU.
359—P. C. Tangalla, 27,515.
•Obscene article—Indecent as a whole—Tendency to corrupt minds—Penal Code,s. 285.
An article is obscene where the tendency of its contents would be todeprave and corrupt the minds of those who peruse it.
A
PPEAL from an order of acquittal by the Police Magistrate ofTangalla.
M. F. S. Pullc, G.C., for Crown, appellant.
Soertsz, for accused, respondent.
August 3, 1931. Macdonell C.J.—
In this case the accused was charged with contravening section 285of the Penal Code in that he printed for sale an obscene article in a paper.or book. The learned Magistrate found that the article was not obscepeand acquitted the accused.^ Now the learned Magistrate has said thatthe article taken as a whole is indecent, and if so, then it would seem thatit is obscene also. The word obscene is defined in the Oxford Dictionaryas follows:—“ Offensive to modesty, expressing or suggesting unchaste•or lustful ideas, impure, indecent, lewd.’1 (This definition is also to befound quoted in the Archibold, 27th ed. p. 1321.) It would seem to
Tillekewardene v. Obeyctekere
115
follow then, if this definition be correct, that in finding that the articletaken as a whole is indecent the learned Magistrate has also found thatit is obscene, and this Court in pronouncing it so is simply carrying outthe findings of the learned Magistrate himself.
The law as .to obscene publications is' sufficiently put in Regina v.Hioklin,1 per .Cockbum C.J., who said in that case: “ I think the test ofobscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenityis to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoralinfluences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”
A perusal of the article in this case, or of so much of it as was an exhibittherein, certainly leaves on my mind an impression that it was obsceneand that the tendency of its contents would be to deprave and corruptthe minds of those into whose hands it may fall. The evidence seems tobe that the paper could be purchased for 10 cents. In printing it there-fore the accused was appealing to a fairly wide audience.
I think this, appeal must be allowed and -thS case sent back with thedirection to the Magistrate to convict.
Set aside.