073-NLR-NLR-V-12-THE-KING-v.-ABEYESEKERE.pdf
( 296 )
mu.
October 24'.
PresentThe Hon. Sir .Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice.
THE KING v. ABEYESEKERE.
D. C. (Crim.), GaUe, 13,617.
False evidence — Summary punishment — Delay — Criminal ProcedureCode, s. .440.
Where the accused was charged on October 1, under section 440of the Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of evidence given byhim on April 26 and was convicted,t—
Held, that the conviction was wrong, inasmuch as the DistrictJudge had no power, after such a long interval, to put in forcethe summary provisions of section 440 of the Criminal ProcedureCode..
A PPEAL by the accused from a conviction under section 440 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code for giving false evidence.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
Walter Pereira, K.C., S.-G., for the Crown.
Cur. adv. oult.
October 28, 1909. Hutchinson C.J.—
This is an appeal against a fine imposed on the appellant undersection 440 of the Criminal Procedure Code for giving false evidence.The appellant contends that it does not appear from the record thathis evidence was in any way false; that he was asked a questionabout one Agoris, without being told which Agoris was meant;that there were two men of that name concerned in the case, one
( 297 )
being a witness, and the other being a man who was bail for one ofthe accused; and that he thought at the moment that the latterwas tlie man who was meant, and that he found out his mistakeimmediately afterwards and informed the Judge of it and correctedit. I see no reason to doubt that the Judge was right as to that.
The other objection is this. The evidence was given on April 26,1909, and the appellant was not brought before' the Court andcharged -and punished until October 1; and the objection is thatthe Court had no power to deal with the alleged offence underseotion 440 after so long a lapse of time. The enactment is that“ if any person giving evidence on any subjeot in open Court in anyjudicial proceeding under this Code gives, in the 'opinion of theCourt before which the judicial proceeding is held, false evidence
it shall be lawful for the Court, if such Court be the Supreme
Court, summarily to sentence such witness as for a contempt of
the Court to imprisonment or, if such Court be an inferior
Court, to order such witness to pay a finie,” &c. Grammaticallyit may not be clear that the word “ summarily ” applies to bothCourts; but I do not. think that any one can doubt that theLegislature intended it so to apply—intended to give power to allCourts to deal with such offences “ summarily,” by imprisonment orfine in the case of the Supreme Court, and by fine only in the case ofother Courts. And the word “summarily,” according to the context,either may mean as a “ summary offence ” (as defined in section 3),or may have its ordinary non-technical sense, which, as given inthe Imperial Dictionary, is “ briefly, concisely, in a short way ormethod, without delay.” The latter is obviously the sense in whichit is used in section 440. If the Court deals with an offence undersection 440 within a day or .two after the offence is committed, orperhaps before the close of the Sessions, it might be deemed to havedone so “ summarily ” ; but I think an interval of over five monthsis too long. The learned Judge explains the delay; he had reportedthe matter to the Government Agent immediately after the evidencewas given in order that the offender, who is a Police Officer, mightbe dealt with by the Government Agent, but when he found thatthe man was not going to be punished, he determined to punishhim under section 440. But in my. opinion he had no longer powerto do so, and I must set the conviction aside.
Appeal allowed.
*•>
1909.
October 28.
Hutchinson
C.J.
23