Back
SURIAN PULLE et al. v. SILVA et al.
NLR9V80
Present : The Hon. Mr. A. G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice,
and Mr. Justice Middleton.
SURIAN PULLE et. al, v. SILVA et al.
P. C., Galle, 30,824
Warrant of arrest in Sinhalese-Validity-English the language of the Courts--Civil Procedure Code, ss. 40, 75, 169, 186, 374, 758, and form No. 60.
Held (by LASCELLES A.C.J. and
MIDDLETON J.), that a warrant of
arrest issued against a judgment-debtor in the Sinhalese language is valid.
Per MIDDLETON J.-Though English is the undoubted language of
the Courts in Ceylon, yet there may be cases in which process may be issued in
the language of the person against whom it is directed, provided that the Judge
who issues it is acquainted with the language of the document he signs.
Per MIDDLETON J.-The fact that the Code lays down that
certain forms of process are invariably to be in the English language seems to
imply that other forms might possibly be in the language of the person upon whom
they have to be served.
APPEAL
from a conviction.
The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of Middleton J.
H. J. C.
Pereira, for 1st and 4th accused, appellants.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, in support of the conviction.
Cur. adv. vult.
12th April, 1906. MIDDLETON J.-
The appellants in this case were the 1st and 4th accused. The 1st accused
Arnolis has been convicted under section 484 of insult, section 183 for
obstructing a Fiscal's officer in the execution of his duty, and under section
334 of using criminal force, and sentenced to a cumulative punishment for all
three offences of one month's rigorous imprisonment. The 4th accused,
one Teberis Samarasinghe, has been convicted under section 484 of insult and
under section 314 of causing hurt and sentenced to the cumulative punishment of
a fine of Rs. 50.
It would seem that a warrant against the person of the 1st
accused in No. 3,719, G. E., Galle, had been granted to Arnolis Silva, the
Fiscal's peon, who arrested the 1st accused and charged him and the 4th accused
and others with committing the various offences of which they have been
convicted upon the execution of the warrant.
The warrant had been granted and signed by Mr. Baumgartner,
but was couched entirely in the Sinhalese language.
It was contended before us-(1) that inasmuch as English is the language of the
Courts the warrant, being in Sinhalese, was bad in
law; (2) that there was no evidence upon which the 1st accused could have been
convicted under section 484; (3) that the 4th accused was wrongly convicted
under section 314, inasmuch as the evidence showed that the offence, if any,
committed by him was one of criminal force and not of causing hurt; (4} that the
sentences, being cumulative on convictions for separate charges, were bad in law
under section 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1896.
With regard to the language of the warrant the dictum of
Bonser C. J., was relied on in Cornells v. Uluwitike(1) where that learned
Judge expressed the opinion that serious doubts might arise as to the legality
of an arrest upon a warrant written in the Sinhalese language, when the language
of the Courts of the Colony was the English language.
In the case before us the person to be arrested was a
Sinhalese, and it seems somewhat opposed to reason that he should complain of
being arrested upon a warrant written in a language which presumably he was
better able to understand than the English language.
Looking at the judgment of Moncreiff A. C. J. in Thurasami v.
Sellachi(2), where it was decided that a signature in Sinhalese to an affidavit
was not a mark, we find that that learned Judge says at page 29: "I have not
been able to find it expressly provided that no language but English can be
admitted in any form in this Court."
Again, on reference to sections 40, 75, 169, 186, 374, and
758 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is laid down that the documents therein
respectively referred to are to toe in the E
