Back
THE QUEEN v. RAMALINGAM
NLR2V48
THE QUEEN v. RAMALINGAM.
D. C., Colombo (Criminal), 1,215.
Offering gratification to screen an offender-Ceylon Penal Code, s. 211-
Necessary averment in charge under a. 211-Judgment in rem.
R. was charged under section 211 of the Ceylon Penal Code with offering a gratification to F in consideration of his screening C from legal punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 389 of the Ceylon Penal Code. C had been tried for that offence and acquitted.
Held by Bonser, C.J., and Withers, J., that before R could be found guilty it must be proved that C was guilty of the offence of criminal breach of trust, and that C's acquittal was not conclusive on that point, a judgment of acquittal or of conviction not being a judgment in rem which could not be controverted.
Held, further, by Bonser, C.J., that a charge under section 211 should contain an averment of the offence committed by the person sought to be screened.
Per Lawrie, J.-The question whether the offer of a gratification by R to F was punishable by law depends not on whether C was or was not guilty of criminal breach of trust; it is sufficient to show that F had reason to believe facts which were relevant to the issue of C's guilt. In either case, C's acquittal was not material to the issue in the prosecution against R.
THE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of
Bonser, C.J.
Cooke, C.C., for appellant.
Dornhorst, Pereira, and de Saram, for accused, respondent.
The following authorities were cited in the course of the argument:-I. L. R., 14 Mad. 400; 2 Moody, C. C, 124; I. L. R., 12 All., 432; 20 W. R., Cr. Rul., 66; Russ. and R., 84; I. L. R., 11 Cal., 619; I. L. R., 3 All. 279; 8 W. R., Cr. Rul., 68, VII., S. C. C, 132.
Cur. adv. vult.
23rd June, 1886. Bonser, C.J.-
The question in this case is as to the construction of section 211 of the Penal Code, which, so far as is material, is as follows: - " Whoever gives, or causes, or offers, or agrees to give or cause, any " gratification to any person, or to restore or cause the restoration " of any property to any person in consideration of that person's " concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal " punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any " person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, shall, " if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to
" ten years, be punished " as therein mentioned. It appears that one Chelliah, an assistant shroff in a bank in Colombo, was charged ' with three separate acts of criminal breach of trust in respect of three several sums of money, viz.: (I) a sum of Rs. 3,000 deposited by one Fernando; (2) a sum of Rs. 2,510-70 deposited by another person; and (3) a sum of Rs. 1,700 deposited by a third person. As these offences were alleged to have taken place within a period of twelve months, the charges were under our law tried together at one trial in the District Court of Colombo by the Acting District Judge sitting alone without assessors. The result of that trial was that Chelliah was acquitted of the first two charges and convicted on the third. It is alleged that whilst these charges were pending against Chelliah, the present respondent Ramalingam) offered Fernando to pay him his Rs. 3,000 if he would refuse to give the bank manager any information respecting the deposit; that Fernando refused, and was subsequently offered by Ramalingam Rs. 5,000, which also he declined. It appears that Fernando not only communicated with the manager, but gave evidence in the preliminary inquiry and at the trial. After the trial Ramalingam was charged and tried for this alleged offence in the District Court of Colombo. The indictment charged Ramalingam: " (1) That he on or about the month of June, 1895, at " Colombo, within the jurisdiction of this Court, offered to give a " gratification of Rs. 5,000 to one Lucas F
