2Q4 SRI SIC AND A RAJAH, J.—Eliyaihamby v. Inspector of Police, Kalmunai
Present:Sri Skanda Rajah, J,
V. ELIYATHAMBY et al. Appellants, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
S. G. 579-581—M. G. Kalmunai, 5448
Charge of uttering obscene toords—Quantum of evidence—Penal Code, s. 287.
A chargo under section 2S7 of the Ponal Code for uttering obscene -wordscannot be maintained if the aggrieved party states in his evidence that he wasnot annoyed by the use of the words in question.
AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court,. Kalmunai.
A. H. C. de Silva, Q.C., with E. A. G. dz Silva, for the accused-appellants.
A> A. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
August 28, 1962. Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
The first charge is one under section 287 of the Penal Code'. Thatcharge alleges that the 1st accused used certain, obscene words to theannoyance of one Murugapper. Moothathamby. Murugapper Mootha-thamby himself has given evidence. He appears to-have been questionedas to what he felt when he heard these words and he has answered “ Whenthe 1st accused abused me I did not feel anything ”. To maintain a chargeunder section 287, Moothathamby should have stated that he was annoyedby the 1st accused uttering these obscene words. If he did not feelanything, it means that he did not feel annoyed. Therefore that chargemust fail. If authority is required for this proposition one can find .itin the case of Croos v. Shaafi which judgment I had-occasion torefer toand follow in a recent judgment of this Court.
The other charges are dependent on the first charge. If the convictionon the 1st count fails, then the convictions on the other three countsmust fail. Therefore, I set aside the convictions of the accused andacquit them.
1 [192G) 28 N. L. E. 233.
V. ELIYATHAMBY et al., Appellants and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALMUNAI, Respondent