SENANAYAKE v. DON JOHN.

SENANAYAKE v. DON JOHN.

P. C., Negombo, 27,626.

Insult-Penal Code, s. 484.

Per Lawrie, J.-Section 484 of the Penal Code limits the character of the offence thereby enacted to such insults as are provocations, and only to such provocations as are intended to cause the person provoked to break the public peace or to commit an offence, or which the insulter or provoker knew would be likely to cause the person provoked to break the public peace.

The section is intended to prevent breaches of the peace by preventing what is likely to cause them,

THIS was a prosecution under section 484 of the Penal Code. It appeared that for the purpose of recovering the rates due to the Local Board of Minuwangoda, the Mudaliyar of the District. who was also the Chairman of the Board, attended by the Vidane Arachchi, went to the house of one Punchappuhamy, when the accused (his son) used abusive language and rushed towards the Chairman saying, " no taxes would be paid." The Vidane Arachchi intercepted his progress, when he pushed him against a wall, which caused him to bleed in the face. Both the officers felt insulted, and so provoked that they had a mind to thrash him.

The Police Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

He appealed.

H. J. 0. Pereira, for appellant.

Bawa, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

30th January, 1901. Lawrie, J.-

Section 484 seems to me to be one of the most difficult in the Penal Code.

It does not declare that all insults are an offence. The section limits the character of an offence to such insults as are provocations, and only to such provocations as are intended to cause the person provoked to break the public peace or to commit an offence, or which the insulter or provoker knew would be likely to cause the person provoked to break the public peace, &c. It is, I think, intended to prevent breaches of the peace by preventing what is likely to cause them. Whether the accused had the intention or knowledge which the section requires, I doubt much. He was drunk, he used indecent vulgar words-words so commonly used that they have almost lost their original meaning, as many English oaths and curses have. The word used had no special

reference to the persons addressed. But the counsel for the accused limited his appeal to urging this Court to reduce the sentence.

The sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment seems to me excessive. I reduce the sentence to a fine of Rs. 50, and if the fine be not paid the accused shall undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

_____________

P. C., Panadure, 9,526.

Mischief-Penal Code, ss. 409, 411-Meaning of maiming.

It is "a wrongful act to inflict wanton injury upon an animal belonging to another person merely because it is trespassing on your ground. For such an act damages can be recovered.

A, finding two cows trespassing on his land whereupon paddy was growing, lost his temper and slashed them with a knife, without attempting to secure them.' The animals were not killed, maimed, or rendered useless.

Held, per Bonser, C.J., that these circumstances justify a conviction under section 409 for mischief, and not under section 411.

To constitute maiming it is essential that permanent injury should be inflicted on the animal.

BONSER, C.J.-I should be disposed, if necessary, to decline to follow Lane v. Waselino (9 S. C. C. 109), Ranhami v. Bodiya (2 C. L. R. 176), and Queen v. Sultan (2 N. L. R. 162).

THIS was an appeal by the accused against a conviction for mischief, under section 411 of the Penal Code. The facts of the case appear fully in the judgment of his Lordship the Chief Justice.

E. Jayawardena appeared for appellant.

BONSER, C.J.-

This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted under section 411 of the Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in default to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Section 411 provides that " whoever commits mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document