1951 Present; Dias S.P.J. and Gunasekara J.

ABRAHAM, Appellant, and HUME, Respondent

S. C. 997-M. C. Hatton, 15,724

Criminal trespass-Right of public meeting in private premises-Superintendent of a plantation-Is in " occupation " of the whole estate-Right of resident labourers to invite outsiders-Mens rea-Penal Code, ss. 433, 69, 72, 88.

The complainant, who was the Superintendent of a tea estate, had refused to grant permission to the accused, who was the President of a Labour Union, to hold a meeting on the estate. Despite the Superintendent's refusal, the accused entered the estate and held the meeting in the temple premises on the estate at the alleged invitation of the labourers who were resident on the estate. There was evidence that the complainant was annoyed by the conduct of the accused.

In a prosecution for criminal trespass-

Held, that the whole of the estate, including the temple and its precincts, . -was in the occupation of the Superintendent and that the accused was guilty of criminal trespass.

R. v. Selvanayagam (1950) 51 N. L. R. 470 distinguished.

Per DIAS S.P.J.-A person cannot be said to have a bona fide claim of right in regard to an alleged " right " which in fact has no existence in law. Under our criminal law, which is codified, the defence known to the English law as a" bona fide claim of right " does not exist apart from sections 69 and 72 of the Penal Code.

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

This case was referred to a bench of two Judges in terms of section 48A of the Courts Ordinance, at the instance of Dias S.P.J.

S. Nadesan, with S. P. Amarasingham, for the accused appellant.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with G. E. Chitty and Vernon Wijetunge, for the complainant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 31, 1951. DIAS S.P.J.-

This is an appeal by one S. Abraham who is the District President of "the Ceylon Plantation Workers' Union of Hatton against his conviction for criminal trespass under s. 433 of the Penal Code and a sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment.

When the case first came up before me, learned counsel on both sides agreed that having regard to the importance of the case and the issues involved, it was desirable that it should be heard by a bench of two Judges. The matter was therefore referred to his Lordship the Chief Justice who in terms of s. 48A of the Courts Ordinance made order accordingly.

The facts on which the charge was based are as follows: -Chapleton Estate is a tea plantation of 593 acres with a resident labour force of 620 labourers. The person in occupation as the agent of the owner is the Superintendent, P. F. Hume.

On March 20, 1950, the appellant, as District President of the Ceylon Plantation Workers' Union, wrote P 1 to Hume, as follows:-" I Shall be thankful if you will kindly give me permission to hold a meeting on your estate on March 26, 1950, at 10 a.m., as we intend to elect a committee for the new year. I have instructed the present committee to meet you and get your approval for the meeting. I assure you that the meeting will be conducted in an orderly and peaceful manner ". Hume replied refusing to grant the permission asked for.

Hume's reasons for refusal are immaterial. He explained that there are two rival unions which had members on this estate, namely, the Union to which the appellant belonged and the Ceylon Indian Congress-Union. As trouble was anticipated, the Ceylon Estate Employers Federation, of which the proprietor of Chapleton Estate is a member had refused to have any dealings with the Ceylon Plantation Workers. Union, and all superintendents belonging to the Employers' Federation had been instructed not to have any dealings with the union to which the appellant belonged. It is in evidence there had once been a riot between the two rival Labour Unions.

Despite the refusal of Hume the appellant decided to enter Chapleton Estate and hold the meetin