Peter Singho, P.M. V. Werapitiya, M.B.

1953 Present: Gratiaen J.

P. M. PETER SINGHO, Appellant, and M. B. WERAPITIYA
(S. I., Police), Respondent

S. C. 835-M. C. Badulla-Haldumulla, 10,128
 

Evidence-Character-Evidence of pending prosecution-Presumption of innocence- Evidence Ordinance, s. 54-Effect of reception of inadmissible evidence in Magistrate's Court.

An accused person who put his " good character " in issue was asked in cross-examination whether there was not pending against him a criminal case-

Held, that the question was inadmissible.

Where a trial Judge has permitted himself, through an improper appreciation of the law, to allow evidence to be led which is of such a character as to pre judice the chances of a fair trial on the real issues in the case, the improper reception of the evidence is fatal to the conviction of the accused, although the accused has been tried not by lay jurors but by a Magistrate trained in the law.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Badulla-Haldu-mulla.

H. V. Perera, Q .C., with M. M. Kumarakulasingham, for the accused appellant.

N. T. D. Kanakaratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 14, 1953. GRATIAEN J.-

This is an appeal against two convictions on charges of cheating.

The evidence in the case discloses a most disturbing state of affairs in regard to the techniques which are unashamedly claimed to be employed by certain classes of people in the hope of securing employment for their friends or relatives as Government school teachers.

The case for the prosecution is that in 1949 a contractor of moderate means in Bandarawela was anxious that his daughter Leelawathie, who had recently passed her S. S. C. Examination in Sinhalese, should obtain employment as a school teacher. He consulted his friend, an Ayurvedic physician, who apparently devotes his spare time to the activities of a " contact man", as to how this ambition could be realised. This friend suggested that they should approach the Headmaster of a Government school (the accused) who was believed to enjoy the confidence of a certain Education Officer. Indeed, the physician concerned asserts that he had obtained similar employment for his own daughter by bribery through the agency of " another headmaster ". The accused was accordingly approached; and, after certain preliminary discussions of a thoroughly discreditable nature had been concluded, it was agreed that he should offer a bribe of Rs. 100 to an Education Officer. A few months after the money was paid, the girl was still unemployed. The accused explained that a further bribe of Rs. 100 was necessary. This sum was also handed to him for transmission to the " proper authority ". A considerable time elapsed, but the girl did not receive her promised letter of employment. The disappointed parent complained to the authorities, who ordered a departmental inquiry, which curiously enough, resulted in a compromise whereby the parent agreed to treat the sum of Rs. 200 as a " loan " granted by him to the accused. Two years later the accused was prosecuted in the Magistrate's Court of Badulla-Haldumulla for cheating the parent in respect of each sum of Rs. 100 by " deceiving him into the belief that he would get his daughter a teacher's appointment by offering a bribe to the Education Officer, Badulla".

The manner of cheating specified in the charge is not quite clear, and one is left in doubt as to what precisely was the false representation complained of. If, for instance, the alleged bribe was actually offered and accepted, was the offence nevertheless established because the alleged assurance of employment had failed to materialise ? Was the false representation complained of that the bribe would be offered or that the employment of Leelawathie would be secured ? A charge of cheating should always particularise the facts relied upon as constituting the offence which is sought t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document