Back
PREMAWARDENE v. SIRIWARDENE et al.
NLR30V292
Present: Lyall Grant J.
PREMAWARDENE v. SIRIWARDENE et al.
344-344 A-P. C. Balapitiya, 10,276.
Charge-Accused charged with criminal force, assault, criminal
intimidation-Convicted of insult-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 181.
A person charged with having committed the offences of wrongful restraint,
criminal force, criminal intimidation, and misconduct in public under sections
332, 343, 486, and 4S8, respectively, of the Penal Code cannot be convicted of
insult under section 484 of the Penal Code without a specific charge being
framed against him under the section.
APPEAL
from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of
Balapitiya. The two accused were charged with having wrongfully obstructed the
complainant from proceeding in his bus and threatened to strike the complainant
and thereby committing offences punishable under sections 332, 343, 486, and 488
of the Penal Code. The Magistrate, however, convicted the first accused of
insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace under section 484, and the
second accused under sections 484 and 486.
De Zoysa, K. C. (with Amarasekera), for first accused, appellant.- The accused
has been convicted of an offence with which he was not originally charged. All
the possible offences with which the prosecution intended to charge the accused
have been specifically referred to in the original charge. The present offence
is a distinct one, and the Magistrate, before convicting him thereon, should
have framed a fresh charge and given the accused an opportunity of meeting it.
Counsel cited (1899) Koch's
Reports, p. 33, and Dingirihami v.Adonchia.1[1 (1906) Lem. and Aser. 46.]
Even if a fresh charge had been framed against the accused, the in the case does
not furnish all the elements necessary to constitute the offence of insult
under section 484. There is no ' evidence that the accused's conduct was such as
to cause the complainant to commit a breach of the peace or any other offence.
Counsel cited Senanayake v. Don John2[2 (1901) 5 N. L. R. 22.]
Mataregawera v. Yaratenepi Unnanse3[3 (1914) 2 Cr. Ap. Rep. 49.],
Waas v. Samaranayake4[ 4 (1915) 6 Bal. Notes 43.] and Sabaratnam
v. Perera.5[ 5 (1916) 3 C. W. R. 120.]
Ranawake, for the second: accused, appellant, urged the same points as above
on behalf of the second accused in respect of the offence under section 484. The
offence of criminal intimidation has not been made out; the actual threat used
is not stated.
Counsel cited (1899) Koch's Reports, p. 66, and Murukesu v. Karunakara6[6
(1923) 2 T. C. L. R. 64.]
Soertsz (with Weerasinghe)-, for complainant, respondent.-The convictions
for insult are justified under sections 181and 182 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The offence of insult was one of a series of acts committed in the course
of one transaction. The accused can be convicted of any offence proved to have
arisen out of these series of acts although not originally included in the
charge.
As regards the offence of criminal intimidation, though the actual, words used
have not been referred to, the Magistrate was justified in inferring the nature
of the threat used from the evidence.
November 6, 1928. LYALL GRANT J.-
The two accused in this case were charged with having, while in a state of
drunkenness, wrongfully obstructed the complainant from proceeding in his bus,
hauled the conductor from the bus, and threatened to strike the complainant, and
thereby committing offences punishable under sections 332, 343, 486, and 488 of
the Penal Code.
Section 332 refers to wrongful restraint, section 343 to assault or criminal
force, section 486 deals with criminal intimidation, and section 488 with
misconduct in public by a drunken person.
The Police Magistrate has not convicted the first accused of any of these
offences, but he has convicted him of insult with .intent to provoke a breach of
the peace under section 484. He has convicted the
