062-NLR-NLR-V-53-DISSANAYAKE-Inspector-of-police-Appellant-and-KRISHNAPILLAI-Respondent.pdf
Dieaanayake v. Krishnapillai
1881
Present : Basnayake J.
• DISSANAYAKE (Inspector of Police), Appellant, andKRISHNAPJLiLAI, Respondent
S. C. 1,034—M. C. Point Pedro, 13,072
•Giving false information to public servant—Charge—Some particulars it should contain
—Ingredients of offence—Penal Code, s. 180.
In a prosecution, under section 180 of the Pena] Code, for giving falseinformation to a public servant—
Held, (i) that the charge must contain a- statement of the information whichit alleges the accused gave. The mere statement that the accused gave " certaininformation " does not satisfy the requirements of the section.
that the charge most specify the person to- whose injury or annoyancethe accused knew the public servant would use his lawful power.
that where the person to whom the information is given has himselfno power to act on that information without the orders of a superior officer,the offence does not fall within the ambit of section 180. .
286
BA8NA.YAKE J.—Dissanayake c. KrishnapHlai
^.PPEAI< from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Point Pedro.
H. A. Wijemanne, Crown Counsel, with A. -If ah endra rajah. CrownCounsel, for the Attorney-General.
H. Wanigatunga for the accused respondent.
a
January 30, 1951. Basnayakh J.—
This is an appeal by the prosecuting police officer from the acquittalof Kanavati Krishnapillai, the respondent to this appeal (hereinafterreferred to as the accused), on the following charge—
That you did. within the jurisdiction of this Court at Point Pedroon 7.6.50 give P. G. 2934 Fernando of Point Pedro, n public servant,certain information which you knew to be false, to wit, that your cycleNo. AX). 51572 was stolen by some person unknown at the court-premises on 7.6-50 knowing it to be likely that you would therebycause the said public servant to use his lawful power as a public servantto t-he injury or annoyance of the said unknown person and therebycommitted an offence punishable under section 180 of the CevlohPenal Code. ”
The facts shortly are as follows. On 7th June the accused made thefollowing statement (Pi) at the Point Pedro Police Station:—“ Todayat about 12 noon I came to M. C. Point Pedro on my pedal cycle in orderto meet Mr. Sabapathipillai, a Proctor. I left the cycle opposite theMagistrate’s Court and went inside. After an hour later when I cameI found the cycle missing. I searched for it till now but there is notrace of it or no information as to who removed it. There were othercycles also close to the place. I questioned from several people whowere there at that time, but they do not know as to who has removed it.The description of the cycle is as follows:
Raleigh Standard, 22 in., repainted with black very recently.No. AD. 51572. There is a small hole in the rear mudguard and somedent marks on the front mudguard, luggage carrier with stand, fixedwith a dynamo light, make not known, Brooks seat, fitted with a messengerbell, new handle grips, a mud flap fitted on to the front mudguard,valued Rs. 75.
“ This cycle was bought by me from one Karuval Ramu of KaranavaiSouth. I produce the receipt. The dynamo light is new in workingorder. I do not suspect any particular person at present. This is all. ”
This statement was recorded by Police Constable 2934 Fernando.Having recorded it he conveyed the information to his superior officer,Sub-Inspector Per era, who investigated the complaint, but was unableto trace the bicycle. On 12th June, on information received from theaccused, the Inspector went with Him to the house of one Simon in whosehouse there was a bicycle which was identified as the stolen bicycle.
BA8NAYAKK J.—Dissanayake v. Krishnapillai
287
Simon's explanation was that he purchased the bicycle from "one Parama-nathan and that he had nothing to do with the accused in respect of thebicycle. Simon was arrested, the bicycle was taken Into custody, anda report in the following terms was sent to the Magistrate's Court: —
“ I hereby report that one Kanapathy Krishnapillai of Velvettymade a complaint on 7.6.50, that he kept his Raleigh bicycleNo. AD. 51572 in front of the main entrance to the Magistrate's Courtand that when he came back from the court house in about an hour’stime, he found his bicycle missing. I made inquiries into the case,and on 12.6.50 traced his cycle with one Simon, son of Pallali. Ihereby produce suspect Simon before Court; and move that he beremanded till 20.6.50 as inquiries have not been completed.
On that report Simon was remanded. Thereafter on 14th June, Sub-Inspector Dissanayake made a further report in which he stated:
" The Police are not proceeding with the case. I move thatrespondent be released. I beg that the complainant KanapathyKrishnapillai be noticed to appear in Court. ”
There is nothing on the record to show that the accused was giventhe option of proceeding with the charge.
Thereafter the present prosecution- appears to have been instituted.Simon and Paramanathan who negotiated the purchase of the accused’sbicycle both gave evidence for the prosecution. The learned Magistratewhile holding that the information given by the accused to P. C. Fernandowas false to his knowledge has acquitted him on the ground that thefacts do not establish an offence under section 180 of the Penal Code.He refers to a dictum of Petheram C.J. in an Indian case to which noreference is cited.
To decide the question arising on this appeal it is not necessary toseek the aid of the Indian Penal Code. The matter can be decided byreference to the section of our Code alone. Section 180 reads:
“ Whoever gives to any public servant and information whfich heknows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowingit to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to usethe lawful power of such public servant to the injury or- annoyanceof any person, or to do or omit anything which such public servantought not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respecting whichsuch information is given were known by him, shall be punished. withimprisonment of either description for a term which may extend tosix months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,or with both. ”
An analysis of the section reveals that to come within its ambit—
(а)a person must give information to a public servant,
(б)the informant must know or believe the information to be false,24 – N. L. R. Vol. – Liu
BASNAYAKE J.—DUsanayake v. Krishnapillai
(o)lie must intend thereby to cause or know it to. be likely thathe thereby will cause the public servant to whom the informa-tion is given, either—
to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of
any person, or
to do or omit anything which such public servant ought
not to do or omit, if the true state of facts respectingwhich such information is given were known by him.
To succeed in a prosecution under the section the prosecution mustallege and prove the ingredients (a), (6), and (c) indicated above.
In the instant case the prosecution has in the first place failed todischarge the onus of stating in the charge the information which italleges the accused gave knowing or believing it to be false. The merestatement that the accused gave P. C. Fernando “ certain information ”does not satisfy the requirements of the section1. The charge is alsodefective in that it does not specify the person to whose injury orannoyance the accused intended or knew that he would cause P. C.Fernando to use his lawful power. An allegation as in the instant casethat the accused knew it to be likely that P. C. Fernando would use hislawful power as a public servant “ to the injury or annoyance ” of “ thesaid unknown person ” is not sufficient. It has been so held by thisCourt in the case of Vk.hu Banda Korala v. M. Cassini *, and I am inrespectful agreement with that decision. The charge must specifythe' person to whose injury, or annoyance the accused intended or knewhe Would by his information cause the public servant to use his lawfulpother. Neither the recorded statement nor the evidence indicatesthat the accused intended or knew that his information to P. C. Fernandowould cause him to use his lawful power to the annoyance of Simon.It has been held3 that where the person to whom the information isgiven has himself no power to act on that information -without theorders of. a ^superior officer the offence does not fall within the ambito.f section 180;. In the instant case it appears from the evidence of
P.C’ Fernando that When information is received by him he has to passit on to his superior officer without whose orders he is not empoweredto go for inquiry. – It does not appear that in the instant case the informa-tion- . has been -recorded under section 121 of the Criminal ProcedureCode, for P. G. Fernando is neither the officer-in charge of the Point PedroPolice station nor; an inquirer.
' Tieatned Grown – Counsel cited certain Indian decisions* in support ofhis appeal. -But it is needless to consider them in view of the numerous
infirmities' of the''prosecution.
i_The prosecution cannot succeed in any event.
The appeal'is dismissed.
1 Ranghamu v. Rajanakse Mudalikamy, 6 Tamhyah 47.
KotA'&dZportrtsr^ –
Perera v. Silva, 4 A. O. R. 33.
*1. L. R. 14 Oalcutta 314.
L. R. 13. Allahabad 361.
44 Allahabad 647,
Appeal dismissed.