QUEEN v. FERNANDO et al.

QUEEN v. FERNANDO et al.

D. C., Kegalla, 1,006,

Criminal Procedure Code, s. 440 (1)-Summary punishment for false evidence in open Court-Irregularity-Evidence,.

Where a witness stated in the Police Court that the third accused pulled the complainant out of the house, and in the District Court that the fourth accused did so, and the District Judge found him guilty of contempt of Court under section 440 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,-

Held, that if the evidence given in the Police Court was false, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to punish the witness for it.

The mere fact that a statement made before the District Judge does not accord with, and is even altogether inconsistent with, a statement made by him in a Police Court, is no evidence that the witness has committed perjury in the District Court.

In proceeding under section 440 (1), it is the duty of the District Judge to find which of the statements made by the witness in the two Courts is false.

And the District Judge has no right to re-model the evidence given by a witness in a Police Court in order to convict him of perjury.

IN this case of robbery and voluntarily causin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document