Athamlebbe V. Inspector Of Police

1948 Present: Basnayake J.
 
ATHAMLEBBE, Appellant and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BATTICALOA,
Respondent.
 
S. C. 9-M. C. Batticaloa, 4,007.

    Criminal Procedure Code-Foreign language-Translation-Tamil-Section 301 (2).
 
Tamil is not a foreign language within the meaning of section 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Batticaloa.
 
H. V. Perera, K.C., with B. G. S. David, for accused, appellant.
 
V. T. Thamotheram, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 10, 1948. BASNAYAKE J.-
 
The accused-appellant has been convicted of the offences of- (a) fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a forged document, and (b) attempting to cheat the Government Agent of the Eastern Province by dishonestly representing to him that he had passed the 8th standard in Tamil, and sentenced to a term of three months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently.

Briefly the material facts are as follows:-The Government Agent of the Eastern Province caused for applications for the post of Headman of Kattankudy Division No. 5. The accused, who was Headman of Kattankudy Division No. 4, was one of those who applied for the post. Along with his application he sent a school certificate which showed that he had passed the 8th standard in Tamil.
 
The accused was selected along with some others for an inter-view. At the interview too he represented to the Government Agent that he had passed the 8th standard in Tamil. Finally the Government Agent provisionally selected the accused for the post. He says he would not have done it if the accused did not in fact possess the educational qualifications claimed. As a matter of caution the Government Agent thereafter sent the accuser's school certificate to the Education Officer for verification and report. It then turned out that the accused had not passed the 8th standard in Tamil, but had only passed the 6th standard. These proceedings are the sequel to that discovery.
 
Counsel for the accused has taken the following objections to his conviction-
 
(a) that there is no proof that the document P 3 which is pronounced to be a forgery is the very document which the accused sent to the Government Agent;
 
(b) that a document in the Tamil language was irregularly admitted in evidence in the course of the proceedings without a duly authenticated translation thereof being filed ;
 
(c) that the accused has in fact passed the 8th standard in Tamil.
 
I have examined the evidence as to the identity of the document P 3 and am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the document P 3 is the very school certificate which the accused sent to the Government Agent.
 
The document to which objection is taken on the ground of its improper admission in evidence is P 6, the log book of the school which the accused attended. Some of the entries in it are in Tamil, others in English. Pages 62. 67 and 75 which contained entries in Tamil were referred to in his evidence in chief by one Thuraiappah who was the headmaster of the school from its inception till he left it in 1919. Counsel for the accused took no objection and was in fact, at his request, given time to examine the log book before cross-examining that witness. His cross-examination shows that the witness has been questioned about not only the entries he referred to in his evidence in chief but also others. The accused has therefore not been prejudiced and the interests of justice have not suffered.
 
But quite apart from that I am unable to read section 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as applying to a document in the language of the native inhabitants of this country. Tamil is the language of a large section of the people and cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as a foreign language within the ordinary meaning of that expression in an enactment of our legislature. According to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document