1949 Present: Basnayake J.

HANIFFA, Appellant, and PACKEER (S. I. Police), Respondent

S. C. 68-M. C. Batticaloa, 6,958

Penal Code-Insult-Provocative of breach of peace-No actual provocation- Offence-Section 484.

An offence under section 484 of the Penal Code is committed where the insult is provocative of a breach of the peace even where the person insulted is not actually provoked or where he shows restraint.

Frazer v. Sinnaiya (1910) 14 N. L. R. 3 followed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Batticaloa.

G. E. Chitty, with Vernon Wijetunge, for accused appellant.

A. E. Keuneman, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 11. 1949. BASNAYAKE J.-

This appeal is from a conviction of the appellant on the following charge : -

" That you did within the jurisdiction of this Court at Badulla Road, Koddamunai, on November 21, 1948, intentionally insult J. Armstrong, Excise Inspector of Batticaloa, by using the following words to wit : ' Onta Pendilai Thada Pundai Magane ' intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under section 484 of the Penal Code ".

Shortly the facts are as follows : On November 21, 1948, Excise Inspector Armstrong was driving his car along the Badulla Road with his mother and children as passengers. He was not in uniform at the time. Near the office of the Eastern Bus Company he heard someone

shout to him to halt his car. He pulled up, got down and went to the* rear of the car and saw the appellant and one Marian. The appellant told him that he had knocked down Marian. The Excise Inspector then offered to take either of them, if injured, to the hospital. The appellant then became defiant and said : " You are an Inspector. I have been driving a car and I know how to drive ". The accused thereafter getting more defiant. abused him in Tamil using the words mentioned in the charge, which have been interpreted to mean " Give me your wife, son of a woman's private parts " and advanced menacingly towards Inspector Armstrong with raised arms.

It is submitted by learned counsel that the evidence does not disclose the offence alleged in the charge. Learned counsel relies on certain dicta expressed in the judgments of this Court cited by him [ S. I. Police v. Wijesekera, (1935) 38 N. L. R. 30. Balasuriya v. Dharmasiri, (1932) 1 C. L. W. 343. V. 3. Perera, Police Vidane v. H. J. Fernando, (1936) 1 C. L. J. (Notes of Oases) 49. Marimuttu v. Dissanayake, (1939) 41 N. L. R. 31.]. With great respect I find myself unable to give my unreserved assent to the expressions of opinion relied on by learned counsel. The reasons for my inability to accept the proposition of learned counsel will appear from what I say hereinafter.

I shall begin by quoting section 484 of the Penal Code which reads :

"Whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both ".

To establish an offence under this section it is necessary to prove,

(a) that the offender intentionally insulted a person,

(b) that he thereby gave provocation to the person insulted.

(c) that he intended that such provocation will cause the person insulted to break the public peace or commit any other offence, or

(d) that he knew it to be likely that such provocation will cause the person insulted to break the public peace or commit any other offence.

Before proceeding further it will be well to examine the meaning of some of the expressions such as " insults ", " gives provocation ", "break the public peace " and " offence ". "To insult" is to treat another with gross indignity, ins