1915. Present  : Wood Renton C.J. and Pereira J.

SAMARASINGHE v. PONNIAH.

209-P. C. Colombo, 51,886.

Information to police against another-Failure to prosecute the charge farther-Police Ordinance No. 16 of 1865, s. 54.

Where a person gave information to the police against a specified person, and thereafter failed to further prosecute the charge,-

Held, that he was liable to be convicted under section 54 of the Police Ordinance.

WOOD RENTON C.J.-Section 54 of the Police Ordinance penalizes the bare laying of an information or making of a complaint which is not further prosecuted. The section is permissive, and the Courts may be: depended upon not to put the law into motion except in cases where punishment is necessary.

PEREIRA J.-The giving by anybody of information to a police officer of the mere fact that an offence has been committed, and even that a particular individual is suspected as the offender, so as to invoke the aid of the police in making inquiry, and the omission thereafter to prosecute anybody in Court, can hardly be said to be a case falling within the purview of section 54.

THIS case was reserved for argument before a bench of two Judges by Ennis J. The facts appear from the judgment.

Arulanandam, for accused, appellant.-The construction placed on section 54 of the Police Ordinance by the Police Magistrate will reduce the law to an absurdity. A man who lays information against a person may subsequently find out that his accusation was groundless. If he desists from prosecuting the man, is he to be fined under section 54 ?

Surely a man must be acquitted if he can establish that he had exercised reasonable care in making his charge to the police, or in other words, that he had sufficient grounds for laying the information.

Counsel also referred to 1 Br. 108, 18 N. L. R. 159, 3 N. L. R. 362.

Grenier, for respondent.-Section 54 is part of the living law of the Colony, and must be given effect to. According to the letter of the law, omitting to prosecute a case further is an offence under any circumstance.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 31, 1915. WOOD RENTON C.J.-

This case raises an interesting and a fresh point in the construction of an extremely difficult enactment, namely, section 54 of the Police Ordinance (No. 16 of 1865). The accused-appellant was charged under that section with having given information to the police against one Uduman, which he thereafter failed to further prosecute. The learned Police Magistrate convicted him and fined him Rs. 50. The petition of appeal alleges that the Police Magistrate had refused to permit the accused to cite witnesses to prove that he had sufficient grounds for making the charge. The learned Police Magistrate in a letter to the Registrar of this Court states that he had permitted the witnesses in the list tendered to him in Court by the accused's proctor to be summoned; that he refused summons on a subsequent list handed into the office by the accused because it did not bear his proctor's signature, and did not disclose how the evidence of the witnesses named was material to the case; and that at the trial the advocate for the accused did not wish to call any witnesses, but contented himself with the argument that the offence was a technical one. I see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Police Magistrate on the evidence before him. The reason given by the accused for his failure to proceed with the prosecution, namely, that his witnesses had been intimidated, was not satisfactory one, and if the circumstances disclosed an offence at all, it deserves substantial punishment. The question remains, however whether the mere laying of an information or making of a complaint to a police officer without its further prosecution is an offence within the meaning of section 54 of the Police Ordinance, 1865 (No. 16 of 1865), or whether it is open to an informant or complainant,

against who