1927 Present: Drieberg A. J.

JAMALDEEN v. CARUPPEN

99-P. C. Hatton, 4,566.

False information-Statement under section 122 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code-Answer to questions by police officer-Penal Code, s. 180.

Statements made under section 122 (1) of the Criminal Procedure. Code in answer to questions put by a police officer may be made the subject of a charge under section 180 of the Penal Code.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Hatton. The appellant was charged with having given a sergeant of the Hatton police information, which he knew to be false, namely, that his house had been broken into and Rs. 75 stolen from it by three coolies whom he suspected, intending the said police sergeant to use his lawful powers as a public servant to the injury and annoyance of .the said coolies. The complaint was in the first instance made to the superintendent of the estate in which the appellant was

employed. The superintendent sent a message to police, whereupon the police sergeant arrived and made inquiries, in the course of which the appellant made the statement which formed the subject-matte of the charge. The learned Police Magistrate held that the store of the theft was a fabrication and convicted the accused. He held further that the statement made to the police sergeant was on falling under section 121 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

James Joseph, for accused, appellant.

R. F. Dias, C. C., for respondent.

April 27, 1927. DRIEBERG  A .J.-

This appeal was argued on March 30 when there was no appearance for the respondent. As the question involved was one importance I directed that notice be given to the Attorney-General and there was further argument on April 12, when the respondent was represented by Crown Counsel.

The appellant was charged with having given to Sergeant Jamaldeen of Hatton police information which he knew to be false viz., that his house had been broken into and Rs. 75 stolen from him and that he had reason to suspect that three fellow-coolies were the culprits, intending the said Jamaldeen to use his lawful powers as  public servant to the injury and annoyance of the said coolies, an offence punishable under section 180 of the Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and has appealed.

The learned Police Magistrate has held, and I agree with him that the story of the theft was a pure invention of the appellant The superintendent of the estate had ordered the three coolies to search the lines for stolen estate tools and the appellant's room was searched. The appellant apparently resented this and made  complaint to the superintendent, Mr. Newton, the terms of which are not known as Mr. Newton did not give evidence, but Mr. Newton telephoned to the police and Sergeant Jamaldeen, who received the message, says it was to the effect that the appellant had informed the superintendent that the three coolies had broken into hi: house.

Sergeant Jamaldeen went to the estate and made inquiries. He was there told by the appellant that people had entered his room by scaling a wall, that they had broken the padlock of his box arid removed Rs. 75; he said that the three coolies, Kathen, Sinnasamy and Kadiravalai, were suspected, but that his only reason for suspicion was that they had been sent by the superintendent to search for estate tools.

There had been in fact no theft; the padlock of the box, which was in order, showed no signs of violence, and the appellant the said that the money had been taken from another box by means of a false key. He said that the Rs. 75 stolen was all the money he had, but it was found that he had Rs. 75 concealed in a provision box. As a result of the appellant's statement the rooms of the three coolies were searched and they were taken before the superintendent and to the police station.

The story of the theft having been fabricated by the appellant