Ismail Et Al. V. Thangiah

1949     Present : Gratiaen J.

ISMAIL et al, Appellants, and THANGIAH,
Respondent

S. C. 1,314-1,315-M. C. Kalmunai 4,556

Criminal Procedure Code-Document in Tamil-Translation-Foreign language-Section 301.

The word " document " in section 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is wide enough to include a written report initiating criminal proceedings before a Magistrate under section 148 (b) and an English translation of any words in it in a " foreign language " should be filed. The word " foreign " in that section means any language other than the official language of the Courts which is English.

Athamlebbe v. Inspector of Police (1948) 49 N. L. R. 234 dissented from.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Kalmunai.

G. E. Chitty, for the accused appellant.

S. S. Wijesinha, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 7, 1949. GRATIAEN J.-

There are two appellants in this case. They were jointly charged with the commission of offences punishable under section 484 of the Penal

Code in that each had used insulting words to a Police Constable on an occasion the details of which I shall refer to in due course. Both were found guilty. The first accused-appellant was also convicted under section 344 with having used criminal force on the constable whilst the latter was engaged in the execution of his official duties.

I shall deal first with the charges of insult. It is not necessary to consider whether this is one of those rare cases when two persons may properly be tried together on charges of insult, because the convictions must be quashed for a more fundamental reason. In section 484 the actual words complained of must be set out in the charge and must be proved at the trial to have been uttered by the accused, because the Judge must be in a position to satisfy himself that the provocation caused by the alleged insulting language was capable of leading to one or the other of the consequences contemplated by the section. In this case, however, this has not been done. The words specified in the charge appear to be of Tamil origin transliterated into English. But neither in the charge nor in the evidence led at the trial is there any indication as to the meaning of these words. This omission has proved to be more than a technical irregularity in the present case, because both Mr. Chitty, who appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Wijesinha, who appeared for the Crown, shared my ignorance as to what the words complained of actually mean. In our desire for enlightenment we invited another Crown Counsel, a Muslim gentleman who was in Court, to help us, but he too failed as we had done. Finally, a Tamil advocate in Court claimed to recognize some of the words, but with how much confidence I really do not know. I feel that as an appellate Judge I have already persisted too far in my search for information on this puzzling matter.

So long as English remains the official language of our Courts it is necessary to insist upon strict compliance with the provisions of section 298 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (which requires the evidence of each

Click Here to Read the rest of this document