Muttusamy Et Al. V. Kannangara

1951   Present. Gratiaen J.

MUTTUSAMY et al., Appellants, and KANNANGARA (Inspector of

Police), Respondent

S. C. 1,160-1,163-M. C. Ratnapura, 21,205

Arrest without warrant-Suspicion must be reasonable-Duty to inform suspect of the charge against him--Police Ordinance (Cap. 43), s. 69-Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 16), s. 32 (1) (b)-Obstructing public servant-More than mere verbal refusal necessary-Resistance to lawful apprehension-Ingredients of offence-Penal Code (Cap. 15), ss. 183, 220 A.

Section 69 of the Police Ordinance does not authorise a police officer without a warrant to enter and search premises for alleged stolen property except on reasonable suspicion. A suspicion is proved to be reasonable only if the facts disclose that it was founded on matters within the police officer's own knowledge or on statements by other persons in a way which justify him in giving them credit.

A mere verbal refusal to allow a public servant to perform his duty is not " obstruction " within the meaning of section 183 of the Penal Code.

Where a person is charged under section 220 A of the Penal Code with offering resistance to his lawful apprehension, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove without doubt that the apprehension was in fact lawful and justified in the circumstances of the case.

A peace officer is not entitled to arrest a person on suspicion, under section 82 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, except on grounds which justify the entertainment of a reasonable suspicion.

Whenever a police officer arrests a person on suspicion without a warrant he should inform the suspect of the true ground of arrest. A citizen is entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is seized.

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

 G. E. Chitty, with N. Nadarasa, for the accused appellants.

 Ananda Pereira, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 19, 1951. GRATIAEN J.-

This case has caused me much anxiety, and I am indebted to Mr. Chitty and to learned Crown Counsel for the assistance they have given me. Important questions have been raised regarding the powers of police officers to search premises or to arrest persons without prior judicial authority. That such powers should be vested in them, within circumscribed limits, is necessary so as to facilitate the prevention and detection of crime. Nevertheless, they are always attended by grave responsibilities, and justice requires that the Courts should be very vigilant to ensure they are not abused through inexperience, excess of zeal or " insolence of office ".

There are four accused in this case, a man and his wife and their two sons. They are Indian estate labourers employed on No. 6 division of Pelmadulla Group in Kahawatte. The 1st accused is 50 years of age and is a sub-kangany in charge of a gang of 18 tappers including his wife the 4th accused who is also 50 years of age, and his married sons the 2nd and 3rd accused. The family occupied a set of adjacent line rooms on the estate, and the evidence seems to indicate that prior to the incident which took place on the night of 81st August 1950, they were of a peaceful disposition.

On the evening of 25th August, 1950, the 1st accused had complained to the Kahawatta police that one of his sons had been assaulted by a man named Gunapala, whose father Andirishamy was a kangany of the same division of the estate as that on which they were employed. The complaint was recorded by Police Constable Dharmasena. There is no evidence as to what official action was taken upon this complaint, and I only mention it because it has been suggested, but not proved, by the defence that Dharmasena was disposed to show some partiality towards Andirishamy and Gunapala in regard to the dispute. For the purposes of my findings in the present case, it is sufficient to record that whether this theory of fav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document