IDROOS v. CASSIM

IDROOS v. CASSIM.

P.C., Colombo, 50,397.

 

False and frivolous charge-Complaint to the police-Further prosecution -Ordinance No. 16 of 1860. a. 54-Imprisonment in default of payment of fine-Penal Code, ss. 61 and 62.

The provisions of section 54* of the Police Ordinance, 1865, are not impliedly repealed by those of the Criminal Procedure Code which relate to condemning a complainant in Crown costs and compensation, or by section 180 of the Penal Code; nor is it necessary, to enable a Magistrate to punish a person under section 54 of the Police Ordinance, for making a false or frivolous charge to the police, that a separate complaint should be made by the police against such person under that section, or that the further prosecution of the false or frivolous charge should be at the instance of the police.

Where a person makes a false or frivolous charge to the police, and then carries the charge himself to Court, the Magistrate, in dismissing the charge, may deal with the complainant in the same case under section 54 of the Police Ordinance.

The period of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine imposed under section 54 of the Police Ordinance must be determined by the provisions of sections 61 and 62 of the Penal Code, and should not exceed one-fourth of the term which is the maximum fixed for the offence under section 54 of the Ordinance.

IN this case the complainant preferred to the police a charge of theft against the accused, and thereafter filed a plaint in the Police Court of Colombo against him for that offence. The Magistrate dismissed the charge, and found that the complaint to the police was false and frivolous. He sentenced the complainant to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or to undergo two months' imprisonment under section 54 of Ordinance No. 16 of 1865. The complainant appealed.

W. Pereira, for appellant.

Cur. adv. vult.

______________________________________________________________________

Foot Notes:

* Section 54 of Ordinance No. 16 of 1865: In every case in which any person shall he given in charge to a police officer on a false or frivolous charge, or in which a false or frivolous charge shall be made to a police officer against any person, or in which any information or complaint shall be laid or made before a police officer and shall not be further prosecuted, or in which if further prosecuted it shall appear to the magistrate by whom the case is heard that there were no sufficient grounds for making the charge, such magistrate shall nave the power to award a fine not exceeding five pounds, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month, or both; or to award such amends not exceeding five pounds, to be paid by the informer or complainant to the party informed or complained against for his lose of time and expenses in the matter as to such magistrate shall seem fit; and such amends shall be recoverable in the manner provided for the levy of fines.

14th February, 1898. Withers, J.-

Before addressing myself to the points of law, I must point out that the appellant did not attempt to show cause why he should not be punished for making a false charge. He called two new witnesses to support the charge, and they produced a very unfavourable impression on the Magistrate's mind. I must take the Magistrate's finding to be a correct one. Even so, Mr. Pereira argued the conviction was not in accordance with law. His client had been punished for an act made punishable by the 54th section of the Police Ordinance of 1865, but that section had been impliedly, if not expressly, repealed by the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. On that point I am against Mr. Pereira. The two Codes were passed together, and the schedule of the Procedure Code only contains a list of repealed laws, Ordinances, and rules of Court.

Several sections of the Police Ordinance of 1865 appear in the list, but not the 54th section, with which we are concerned.

Again,