131-NLR-NLR-V-39-ABDUL-WAHAB-v.-A.-J.-PERERA–et-al.pdf
ABRAHAMS C.J.—Abdul Wahab v. A. J. Perera.
475
1936
Present: Abrahams CJ., Koch and Moseley JJ.ABDUL WAHAB v. A. J. PERERA et al.
In the Matter of a Rule for Contempt of Court underSection 51 of the Courts Ordinance.
P. C. Avissawella, No. 12,421
Contempt of court—Criminal charge pending against person—Distribution ofinflammatory leaflet—Suggestion that the accused is guilty of offence-—Courts Ordinance, s. 51.
Where, pending a criminal charge against a person, the respondentsdistributed among the public a leaflet containing inflammatory language,calculated to excite racial feeling, and suggesting that the accused in thecase was guilty of the- offence with which he was charged,—
Held, that the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court.
HIS was an application for a rule on the respondents for contempt of
T court in respect of a notice issued by them convening a publicmeeting to discuss a criminal charge pending before the Police Court ofAvissawella, in which the petitioner and some others were charged withbeing members of an unlawful assembly, rape, and abduction.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him E. A. P. Wijeratne and R. G. C. Pereira),for the petitioner.
M.T. de S. Amerasekere (with him T. S'. Fernando), for the respondents.
J. W. R. llangakoon, A.-G. (with him S. J. C. Schokman, C.C.), for theCrown.
October 12, 1936. Abrahams C.J.—
There is no doubt that this is a bad contempt of court. The languageused in the leaflet, which was apparently widely distributed, can only beinterpreted in one way and that is that the person named therein is guiltyof the offence with which he was charged. Further, the language used ismost inflammatory. It is calculated to excite racial feeling and alsosocial indignation— a Sinhalese lady being said to have been outraged by arich man belonging to some Muhammadan sect.
It is hardly necessary for us to enlarge on the mischievousness of sucha pamphlet. In a country where trial by jury for serious offences is therule, jurymen may be deterred from doing their strict duty by a knowledgethat inHhe minds of the people of the district in which the crime has beencommitted the accused person was regarded as guilty long before he wasbrought to trial and in a more subtle way possibly witnesses for theprosecution and the defence may be in the. one case influenced toexaggerate their evidence and in the other actually deterred from givingit. As to whether the respondents actually intend to prejudice a fairtrial or not, we are of the opinion that they never stopped to think aboutit. As is unfortunately not seldom the ways of men in such matters,
476 ABRAHAMS C.J.—In the Matter of an Application for Re-admission
as an Advocate.
-they assumed the guilt of the accused and could not contemplate anyother conclusiqn to the trial than his conviction. But that they actedwith deliberate malice against the accused' is a matter which we do nothold to be proved.
This, we understand, is the first case of its kind that has occurred in theIsland. We hope that it will be a very long time before there is another.The people of this pountry have travelled far along the road which leadsto the management" of their own affairs. They have also travelled veryfast along that road and must realize that these people who have theprivilege of making the laws which govern them have also the sternobligation of obeying those laws.
We have hesitated whether it is not our duty to. mark our disapprovalof the action of the respondents by sending them to prison. But as thisis the first, case of its kind, as we have already said, and the respondentshave not disputed the facts and not raised any technical points but havesubmitted themselves fully and humbly to the judgment of the Court,we have no desire in this case to be harsh. We fine them each Rs. 200or in default sentence them to undergo three months’ simple imprison-ment. On the .application of Mr. Amerasekere the respondents are
granted ten days in which to pay the fine.
Koch J.—I agree.
Moseley J.—I agree.
Rule made absolute.