072-NLR-NLR-V-46-SUBASINGHE-Appellant-and-MUTTIAH-Respondent.pdf
208
Subasinghe and Muttiah.
1945Present: Howard C.J.
SUBASINGHE, Appellant, and MUTTIAH, Respondent.
735—M.C. Negombo, 40,776.
Insult—Ingredients of offence—Penal Code, s. 484.
In order to constitute an offence under section 484 of the Penal Codeit must bes proved that (a) the insalt was intentional, (b) was of a pro-vocative character likely to produce a breach of the peace, (c) the accusedknew that his words were likely to produce that result.
t
J^PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Negombo.
S.Nadesan (with him N .■ Nadarasa), for the accused, appellant.
■ T. 8. Fernando, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
HOWARD C.J.—Subasinghe and Muttiah.
209 .
January 30, 1946. Howard C.J.—
The appellant appeals from his conviction on a charge under section484 of the Penal Code that he did insult Mr. A. P. Wickremasooriya,Station Master, Negombo Railway Station, by using the following words,—
* * I will take off your uniform and teach you a good lesson ’ ’; and thereby.gave provocation to the said Mr. A. P. Wickremasooriya intending thatsuch provocation will cause the said Mr. A. P. Wickremasooriya to breakthe public peace or to commit anyother offence.Theappellant onthe
day in question went to the railwaystation to fetch hisparcel of papers.
The Station Master was on the platform attending to two trains whichhad arrived at the station at that time. The appellant approached theStation Master and complained that his papers were being delayed anddemanded immediate inquiry. The Station Master was busy at the timeand wanted the appellant to wait a few minutes. The appellant thenbecame boisterous and threatened to report the Station Master to theGeneral Manager. After the train had gone the Station Master wentto the booking office and found thatthe papers hadbeen delivered fothe
appellant. As the appellant was'going throughthegate wherethe
policeman collects tickets the appellant used the words which have -beenmade the subject of this charge. The Station Master says that he wasgreatly provoked by these words and went up to the appellant and ■told him that he proposed to detain him till he handed him over to thepolice. He says that he detained him fearing a breach of the peace.
Counsel for the appellant contends that the words alleged to have beenused by the appellant cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be saidto constitute in law an offence under section 434 of the Penal Code.It has been held by this and the Indian Courts that a charge of insultcannot be sustained if the language used amounted to mere verbal abuse.
. It must also appear from the circumstances, from the terms of the abuseitself, and having regard to the person to whom it was addressed, that theaccused intended or knew it would be likely to cause him to break thepeace or commit some other offence. In this connection the cases ofBala8uriya v. Dharmasiri 1 and U-. J. Perera v. Fernando * are very muchin point. In the latter case Abrahams C.J. held that in the absenceof a finding that the accused had the necessary intention or knowledgethat the person insulted was likely to break the public peace, the con-viction of the accused for an offence under section 484) was not sustain-able. Now in this • case the Magistrate has satisfied himself that theinsult was intentional. He also finds that the insult was of a provocativecharacter likely to produce a breach of the peace and that consideringall the evidence, he js satisfied that the accused must have known he wouldproduce that result. I find it impossible to say having regard to all thecircumstances of the case that the Magistrate’s finding on this point waswrong. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Affirmed.
1 1 C. L. W. 343. .
* 1. C. L. J. 49—Notet.