74

P. C., Galle, 20,984.

," - - -

Clause 1 of section 12 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1895 gives power to Courts, if they are of opinion that false evidence within the meaning of section 188 of the Ceylon Penal Code has been given by any witness, to summarily punish him as for a contempt of court. But this power must be exercised in accordance with established legal principles, witness, before he is punished under this section, must be informed of the facts constituting his offence, and given an opportunity of explanation.

Per Bonser, C.J.-Punishment under clause I of section 12 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1895 should only be used in cases where it is clear on the face of the proceedings that witnesses have been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, not in cases where there is a conflict of testimony. In the latter class of cases Magistrates will do well to exercise, one of the alternative courses open to them under section 12.*

Observations by Lawrie, ,T., on the inexpediency of the change in the law as to punishment for perjury effected by Ordinance No. 9 of 1895.

facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of BONSER, C.J.

for appellant.

for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

26th June, 1896.

This appeal came before me originally sitting alone, but inasmuch as this was the first cast' in which an order made under section 12 of the Ordinance No. 0 of 1895 had come before this Court, 1 reserved the case to be heard before the Full Court, being of opinion that it was desirable that an authoritative ruling should be issued by this Court for the guidance of District Judges and Magistrates in the exercise of the powers given by that section.

___________________________________________________________________

Foot Notes:

* Section 12, clause 4: " In lieu of exercising the power given by this section, the Court may, if it. thinks fit, transmit the record of the judicial proceeding to the Attorney-General to enable him to exercise the powers conferred on him by ' The Criminal Procedure Code, 1883,' or proceed in manner provided by section 443 of ' The Criminal Procedure Code, 1883,' or by section 835 of ' The Civil Procedure Code, 1889.'

It appears that two of the appellants brought a charge against certain men of having assaulted them and robbed them of some money. The Police Magistrate, after hearing the evidence of these two appellants and of third appellant, a local Police Officer, who gave evidence in support of the charge, and after hearing some evidence on behalf of the accused, stopped the case and discharged the accused, giving his reasons in the following words: -

"It is unnecessary to record further evidence for the defence "There was a quarrel in connection with a debt for milk, and "blows were exchanged. Police Officer of Labuduwa, complainant's " uncle, came to the spot, and this false charge of robbery was " hastily concocted, but fortunately there was no time to arrange " details and drill the witnesses. The following are some salient "points which show the falseness of the evidence. Complainant '' says the Police Officer came to him when he was working with " other coolies on the top of a hill and gave him the notes to change; " his brother Hendrick never worked on the estate, and was not " there yesterday; no trade in milk was ever carried on by his " father; he was within sight of Hendrick when the latter was robbed." Police Officer of Labuduwa gave complainant the notes at the " store after all work was over, and did not go up the hill at all. " Hendrick never worked on the estate.

Hendrick says he has worked on this estate for the last six " months; worked there in complainant's gang yesterday; saw " Police Officer of Labuduwa come up the hill and speak about the " money, and afterwards give the n