104-NLR-NLR-V-22-THE-SUB—INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-CHILAW-v.-HORATHALA.pdf

( 350 )
1921.
Present: Shaw J.
THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHILAW, v.
HORATHALA.
187—P. C. Chilaw, 10,043.
‘Criminal Procedure Code, 8. 413—Accused charged with offering illegalgratification—Charge withdrawn—Order forfeiting the amountpaid.
The accused was charged under section 211 of the Penal Code■ for having offered an illegal gratification to the police.
The Magistrate held that no offence was committed by theaccused in offering the sum to the police, but ordered that thesum paid should be forfeited.
Held, that the order as to forfeiture was wrong.
THE factfe appear from the judgment.
E. W. Jayawardene (with him Arulanandan), for appellant.February 23,1921. Shaw J.—■
This is an appeal from an order of the Police Magistrate undersection 413 of the Criminal Procedure Code “forfeiting a sum ofRs. 50 which had been paid by the accused man to the police underthe following circumstances. The accused’s son was charged bya police constable with being unlawfully in possession of opium.The father thereupon offered a bribe of Rs. 50 to the constable ifhe would discontinue the charge against his son. The father wasthen charged before the Magistrate under section 211 of the PenalCode for having offered an illegal gratification to the police. Thecharge against the son for being unlawfully in possession of opiumwas dismissed, the Magistrate who heard that charge not beingsatisfied that the offence had been committed. Thereupon, the
(351)
Sub-Inspeotor, who was in charge of the case against the fatherfor offering an illegal gratification, withdrew the charge in respectof that offence. He withdrew the charge because an .Indian casewas cited to the Magistrate which was to the effect that where abribe had been offered to the police for the purpose of stifling acharge which eventually turned out to be an unfounded one, acharge of offering an illegal gratification in order to prevent theunfounded oharge being brought was not. an offence under thesection of the Indian Ordinance which corresponds to section 211of our Penal Code. Whether this Indian decision is correct or not*[ need not consider in the present case, but as the matter nowstands the Magistrate has decided that no offence was committedby the father in offering this sum to the police, and, therefore, theBs. 50 which he handed to the police is not a sum of money withrespect to which a criminal offence has been committed. Section413, under which the Magistrate has made an order for the confis-cation of the Bs. 50, only applies to property regarding which anoffence appears to have been committed, or which has been usedfor the commission of an offence. That has been found not to bethe case as regards this Bs. 50. It cannot, therefore, be confiscated,but must be returned to the present appellant.
therefore, set aside the order and direct the return of themoney to the appellant.
Set aside.
1921*
Shaw J.
The Sub-Inspectorof Police,Chilaw, .Horathala
♦