Inspector Of Police, Kurunegala V. Sabapathy

Present; Jayewardene A.J.  1923

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUNEGALA, v. SABAPATHY.

 80-P. C. Kurunegala, 17,274.

Ordinance No. 11 of 1894-Intermeddling with suitors-Proctor asking Inspector not to prosecute, a person charged with an offence.

When a person who is charged with an offence appeals to a proctor for help and assistance, and the proctor asks the complainant not to prosecute, but to let the man off ; it cannot be said that the proctor intermeddled at all, or that he meddled without " proper excuse."

In the same way a father might interfere on behalf of his son, a master on behalf of his servant, and vice versa. In short, any person interested in a party concerned in any litigation, or in the litigation itself, might do the same without becoming liable to be charged under section 5 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1894.

THE facts are set out in the evidence.

Pereira, K. C. (with him Balasingham and Peri Sunderam), for the accused.-The evidence shows that Casi Lebbe was engaged by accused to milk his cow, and that he appealed to accused for help when he was arrested. The conduct of the accused cannot in the circumstances be said to be " intermeddling." The Ordinance does not apply to a person like the accused. See Menon v. Abdul Lebbe [1 {1915) 5 C. W. R. 61.] and Keegel v. Asana Marikar. [ 2 (1912)16 N.L.R.69. ]

Bias, C C., for the respondent.-The accused was not retained by Casi Lebbe, and he was not acting as his proctor or legal adviser. It is clear that he wanted the Inspector not to prosecute his tout. He had no lawful or proper excuse for thus intermeddling with the Inspector. Counsel referred to Mesu v. Karunaratne [3 (1906) 9 N. L. R. 146.]

May 15, 1923. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

This is an appeal by the accused, a proctor practising at Kurunegala, who has been convicted under section 5 of Ordinance

No. 11 of 1894, called " An Ordinance to suppress intermeddlers with suitors in Courts of Justice." The present section No. 5 has been substituted for the original section by Ordinance No. 35 of 1917. It appears that one Casi Lebbe, who is described by the police as a well-known tout, was arrested by L. C. Pereira, a Sub-Inspector of Police, for interfering with some witnesses in a case in which the Sub-Inspector was prosecuting. Casi Lebbe was brought into the Police Court, and placed near the dock. The accused then approached the Sub-Inspector, who was in the company of two others-Sub-Inspectors Jacotine and Prins-and asked Pereira not to charge Casi Lebbe, but to let him off, as Casi Lebbe was his tout. Pereira and Prins were certain that the accused called Casi Lebbe his tout, while Jacotine said that accused did not use the word " tout," but said " do not prosecute as he is my man." On these facts the accused was charged under section 5. The accused says that Casi Lebbe made gestures to him indicating that he wanted his help, and he spoke to the Sub-Inspector as the man implored him. He denies haying called Casi Lebbe his tout, but admits that he said : " The man is known to me, let him off." In re-examination he added that Casi Lebbe lived close to his house, and sometimes milked his cow. The accused's proctor also contended for him that section 5 did not apply to legal practitioners. The learned Police Magistrate convicted the accused, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He held, I think, rightly, that section 5 was wide enough to include a legal practitioner, if he was not acting as such. He also held that the accused, on his own showing, had intermeddled with Sub-Inspector Pereira, who was a suitor before the Police Court of Kurunegala, and that it was immaterial whether the accused used the word " tout" or not. He did not find that Casi Lebbe was accused's tout, and he did not disbelieve the accused when he stated that he spoke to the Sub-Inspector, as Casi Lebbe appealed to him for help. At the argument before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document