In The Matter Of An Application For A Mandamus On The Police Magistrate Of Colombo

1914. Present  : Pereira J.

In the Matter of an Application for a Mandamus on the
Police Magistrate of Colombo.

47,711-P. C. Colombo.

Complaint to police-Report to Court under s. 148 (1) (b) by the police- Acquittal of accused by the Police Court-Application by complainant for a certified copy of the proceedings-" Person affected ' by the order"-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 434.

A person on whose complaint or information the police make & report to the Court under section 148 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code is a person " affected by the judgment or final order " in the case in terms of section 434, and he is, under that section, and subject to the conditions therein specified, entitled to have a copy of any deposition or other part of the record.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

J. S. Jayewardene, for applicant.-Section 434 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Magistrate to furnish a copy of the depositions to any party " affected " by the order in the case. The applicant is a party "-affected." He has the right of appeal with the sanction of the Attorney-General. It is also a rule of the Attorney-General's Department that applications for sanction to appeal must be accompanied by a copy of the proceedings. Technically no doubt the Police Inspector is the prosecutor. But the applicant is the party "affected" by the Magistrate's order. The case of The Bank of Bengal v. Dinonath Roy1[I. L. R. 8 Cal. 166.] is on all fours with the present case. The acquittal of an accused may be a serious reflection on the character of the complainant.

Cur. adv. vult.

71

August 10, 1914. PEREIRA J.-

This is an application for a mandamus on the Police Magistrate of Colombo to compel him to issue to the applicant a copy of the depositions recorded in case No. 47,711 of his Court on payment of the fees prescribed by section 434 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is, I regret to observe, a misleading statement in the petition presented to this Court, which the Police Magistrate in a letter to the Registrar points out as a statement that is " not true." It may be argued that whether the statement is true or false is rather a matter of opinion; but that it is, to say the least, misleading is beyond question. The statement is that the appellant prosecuted the accused in the case. The truth is that the applicant gave information to the police charging the accused with having voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him, and the police thereupon made the usual written report to the Police Court under section 148 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These facts should have been clearly disclosed in the application without any equivocation whatever. The Police Magistrate appears to have regarded the police officer who made the report to him, and not the applicant, as the prosecutor in the case, and refused to issue a copy of the proceedings, except to the accused or the prosecutor. The applicant, on the other hand, maintains that he is a party " affected " by the order in the case, and that he has a right of appeal from that order with the sanction of the Attorney-General, and in order to satisfy the Attorney-General that he has good grounds of appeal he requires, according to rule in the Attorney-General's Department, a copy of the proceedings. Whether the applicant is prosecutor in the case or not, I think there is little doubt that it is open to him to appeal from the order in the case with the sanction of the Attorney-General. Section 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that an appeal from an acquittal may be taken at the instance of the Attorney-General or with his written sanction, but it does not specify who, in the latter case, should be the party appellant. I think it is open to the Attorney-General to issue his sanction to any person interested, and thus enable him to appeal. How

Click Here to Read the rest of this document