084-NLR-NLR-V-37-THE-KING-V.-PARAMANPALAM.pdf
384
The King v. Paramanpalam.
1935Present: Maartensz J.
THE KING v. PARAMANPALAM116—D. C. (Crim.) Jaffna, 3,805.
Village Committee—Obstructing Chairman in the discharge of his duty—Power of Chairman to fine a member—Committee must be in judicialsession—Details of charge—Manner of obstruction—Penal Code, s. 183.The Chairman of a Village Committee has no jurisdiction to frame acharge against a person for obstructing proceedings, under section 51 ofthe Village Committee Ordinance unless the Committee is in sessionas a judicial body, after the members had observed certain formalities.
In a charge of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of hispublic functions, it is essential to set out the manner in which theobstruction was caused.
PPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Jaffna.
H. V. Perera (with him Nadesan), for the accused, appellant.
E. B. Wickremanayake, Acting C.C., for the Crown, respondent.
MAARTENSZ J.—The King v. Paramanpalam.
385
April 8,1935. Maartensz J.—
t
The accused in this case was charged before the District Court ofJaffna with (1) voluntarily causing hurt to one Subramaniam, Chairman,Village Committee, Achchuvely, a public servant, in the discharge of hisduty as such public servant, an offence punishable under section 323of the Ceylon Penal Code; (2) voluntarily obstructing the said Subra-maniam, a public servant, in the discharge of his public functions, anoffence punishable under section 183 of the Ceylon Penal Code; (3)voluntarily causing hurt to the said Subramaniam, an offence punishableunder section 314 of the Ceylon Penal Code. The accused was convictedunder the second and third charges. He appeals from this convictionboth on the law and on the facts.
I see no reason to dissent from the finding of the learned District Judgethat the accused conducted himself in the manner described by thewitnesses for the prosecution at a meeting of the Village Committee heldon December 16, 1933, held to consider the budget proposals for 1934.According to the finding the meeting began at 10 a.m. and continuedtill 3.30 p.m. Towards the end of the meeting the accused wanted toreopen the vote already passed in respect of the Achchuvely lanes.The Chairman refused to reopen the proceedings on the ground thatthis item had already been disposed of and all the available moneyappropriated. The accused disagreed and was asked ‘ by the Chairmanto sit down. The accused replied “ are you the rascal (or fellow) toask me to sit down? ” and went on abusing the Chairman in Tamil.The accused then left his seat and advanced towards the Chairmanwho was sitting on a raised platform. When the accused came near thedock the Chairman asked him to stop and took a paper to frame a chargeagainst him under section 51 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924, which empowersa Village Tribunal or Village Committee to order a person who mis-conducts himself while a Village Tribunal or Village Committee is sittingto pay a fine not exceeding Rs. 10 and in default of payment to sufferimprisonment of either description in a period not exceeding seven days.The accused then rushed up to the Chairman who was seated on a chairand pushed him down, with the result that the Chairman struck hishead against the wall and sustained injuries of a minor nature.
The accused was acquitted on the first charge as the Chairman hadat the moment no jurisdiction to frame a charge against the accusedunder section 51 of the Village Committees Ordinance, the Committeenot being then in session as a judicial body. Section 44 of the Ordinanceenacts that “ where any rules shall have been duly made by theinhabitants or Village Committee of any subdivision and no VillageTribunal shall have been established for such subdivision, the VillageCommittee for the time being shall be a court for the trial of breachesof such rules and for such other matters as are hereinafter provided”.A Village Committee is not ipso facto a judicial body. The rules providingthe procedure for the exercise by a Village Committee of the powersvested in it by section 44 are contained in Part V. of the Rules made byHis Excellency the Governor in the exercise of the powers vested in himby section 95 of the Ordinance, published in the Govetnment Gazette
386
Sivapakiam v. Nawamani Ammal.
No. 7,568 of February 18, 1927. In the case of a Village Committeeevery Committeeman engaged in the hearing of a trial has by Rule 16ato take and subscribe an oath in the form prescribed in Schedule I. tothe Rules before the commencement of the trial. It appears from theseRules that before a Village Tribunal or Village Committee goes intosession as a judicial body certain formalities have to be observed. Theseformalities were not observed before the meeting of December 16, 1933.The accused was therefore rightly acquitted of causing hurt to theChairman in the discharge of his duties as a public servant.
It was submitted that the accused could not be convicted on the secondcharge as it was defective as it did not set out the manner in whichMr. Subramaniam was obstructed by the accused in the discharge of hisfunctions. – The evidence of Mr. Subramaniam was read to me and Ifind that he has not stated precisely what acts of the accused constitutedthe obstruction; in what way the functions he was discharging wereobstructed or what functions he was discharging at the moment. Ithink this defect in the evidence vitiates the conviction of the accusedon the second charge. It was not for the District Judge to determinewhat the acts were or what functions were interrupted in the circum-stances of this case where the accused himself was a member of theVillage Committee which was in session and who as such had a right toaddress the chair. It is unnecessary for me to decide whether the Chair-man of a Village Committee is a public servant or not. I accordinglyacquit the accused on the second count of the indictment.
I affirm the conviction under the third charge. I see no reason tointerfere with the sentence passed by the District Judge.
The appeal of the accused from the conviction on the second chargeis allowed, and the appeal from the conviction on the third charge isdismissed.
Varied.