1932 Present : Jayewardene A.J.

HERATH v. RAJAPAKSE.

239-P, C. Panadure, 13,041.

Public servant-Threat of injury-Must be calculated to deter from duty- Penal Code, s. 186.

A threat of injury to a public servant within the meaning of section 186 of the Penal Code must be of coming injury such as is likely to operate on the mind to cause the public servant to do, or forbear or delay doing an act connected with the exercise of his public functions.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Panadure.

H. V. Perera (with him M. T. de S. Ameresekere), for accused-appellant.

July 5, 1932. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

The accused, who is a resident of Katunayaka near Negombo, on February 1, 1932, had gone on a visit, probably of inspection, to his estate at Ambalangoda, about 83 miles away. On his way to the estate he was held up at about 8 A.M. by the Kalutara Police near the Kalutara bridge and asked for his new licence for the year 1932. He had only his old licence and was charged with failing to renew his licence for 1932, in the Kalutara Police Court, but has been discharged. On his return journey at about 2 P.M., he was stopped at Wadduwa, a few miles from the Kalutara bridge, and again questioned by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panadure, the complainant. The accused seems to have been angry and told the complainant that his car had already been trapped at Kalutara. He did not give his name and address till he was asked three times. As he was going off he said, addressing the Sub-Inspector, " You rascal, wait and see what I would do to you." . In respect of this language three charges have been framed against the accused, namely: -

First, that he held out a threat of injury to a public servant to deter him from doing his duty, under section 186.

Second, for insult under section 484.

Third, for criminal intimidation under section 486.

Towards the end of his cross-examination, the complainant said that the accused raised his fist towards his as he used the words. In this he is not supported by his witness, the Excise Inspector. The Magistrate convicted on all three counts but fined him Rs. 5 on the first and second counts and passed no sentence on the third as it was included in the first count.

On a charge of threat of injury to a public servant it is necessary to prove that the threats were really calculated to cause the person to whom they were held out to act otherwise than he would have done of his own free will. What the section deals with are menaces which would have a tendency to induce the public servant to alter his action because of some possible injury to himself. Rex v. Amirkhan [1 (1886) Unreported Cr. C. 273 [Ratnalal, p. 240 (4th ed.)].  ] The word threat should not be narrowly construed as meaning a mere effusion of passion unattended with any fixed purpose of doing harm. [1 Gour. 1032 (4th Edition).] The threat must be of coming injury such as is likely to operate on the mind of the public servant and to cause him to do or forbear, or delay doing any act, connected with the exercise of his public functions. The complainant in the present case has not been threatened into inaction. On the very next day he charged the accused in the Police Court. I do not think that the words used by the accused were intended or calculated to influence the complainant in any way. On the contrary, their effect is best appreciated by the prosecution which has resulted in this appeal. His mind was steeled to further action.

The charge of insult is not sustainable. It must appear from the words used and having regard to the person to whom they were addressed that the accused intended or knew that it would be likely to cause him to break the peace or commit some other offence. Rahaman v. Perera[2 10 C. L. R 160 . ], Waas v. Samarasinghe[3 3 ,Weer. 80] P. C. Negombo, 74,620[4 S. C. M. 17 v. 32.]

Lord Ellenborough C.J. observed in Rex y. Southerton [5