122-NLR-NLR-V-16-WICKRAMASEKERA-v.-DINGIRI-BANDA.pdf
( 458 )
1018.
Present: Pereira J.
WICKRAMASEKERA v. DINGIRI BANDA.
77—D. C. Kandy, 21,829.
Contempt of Court—Prevarication—False evidence.
A 'witness who deliberately prevaricates is guilty of contempt ofCourt; but the mere making of a false statement in giving evidenceis not prevarication. To constitute prevarication there must bean attempt at evasion of the truth^-at shuffling or quibbling whengiving evidence. The giving of false evidence does not necessarilyamount to contempt of Court, unless the evidence is so transparentlyfalse as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of an attempt, on thepart of the witness to trifle with the Court.
'J'HE facts appear from the judgment.
No appearance for appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 3, 1913. Pereira J.—
In this case the appellant, who was a witness, appeals from anorder of the District Judge convicting him of contempt of Courtand imposing on him a fine of Rs. 100. The alleged contempt,according to the District Judge, consists in prevarication. Herecords that the appellant is charged with “ contempt of Court bytrying to mislead it by prevarication,” and the prevaricationreferred to here is thus set forth by the District Judge:. “ That he,on the 16th instant, denied that the Tambligahawatta, which hadbeen transferred to him by a notarial deed, had been so transferred.by the first defendant, and stated that she had no connection what-. ever with that transaction.” Now, deliberate prevarication no
( 459 )
doubt constitutes contempt of Court; but what is prevarication,and was the appellant guilty of prevarication, or merely of makinga false statement when giving evidence on oath? To prevaricateliterally means to shift or turn from one side to the other. As com-monly used, it means to evade telling the truth, to shuffle, to quib-ble. The underlying idea is an artful mode of escaping the scrutinyof an inquirer by the use generally of loose and indefinite expressions.This being so, it is. quite clear that the appellant was not guilty ofprevarication. He was asked a certain. question, and he gave aclear and definite though false answer. That was not prevarication,and it follows that the conviction on the ground of prevaricationcannot stand. Can it be said that the appellant is guilty of contemptin giving false evidence? A Judge cannot be too careful andcautious in proceeding as for contempt against a witness who .merelygives false evidence. If this course is freely pursued, some onewitness or another may have to be punished for contempt of Courtin almost every case. Ordinarily, a witness who gives false evidencein a Court of justice intends no contempt. Intention may, however,be presumed, and the witness may be guilty of contempt if theevidence is so transparently false as to give rise to a reasonablesuspicion of an attempt on the part of the witness to trifle withthe Court. The position is clearly laid down by the Chief Justicein the case of Asanar v- Andrew.1 I cannot say that the answergiven by the witness in the present case was evidence of thedescription mentioned above. I say nothing of the possible waysin which the witness might have been dealt with.
I set aside the order appealed from.
Set aside.
1919.
P9BBZBA J.
Wickramobsekera v-DihgiriBandai
* (1912) 15 N. L. R. 406.