Corea, D.H.R.A. V. The Queen

1954 Present: Gratiaen J. and Fernando A. J.

D. H. R. A. COREA et al., Appellants, and THE QUEEN, Respondent

S. C. 33-35-D. C. (Criminal) Nuwara Eliya, 279
 

Arrest without warrant-Cognizable offence-Duty to inform suspect of the charge against him-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 23 (1), 32 (1) (b), 35, 53-Penal Code, ss. 69, 333, 348.

A police officer acts illegally in Ceylon (as in England) if he arrests a man without a warrant on a mere ' unexpressed suspicion ' that a particular cognizable offence has been committed-unless ' the circumstances are such that the man must know the general nature of the offence for which he is detained or unless the man ' himself produces the situation which makes it practically impossible to inform him. In such a case the police officer is liable to be convicted under the Penal Code for assault and wrongful confinement.

Held further, that a police constable who bonafide arrests a person on an order wrongly given by his senior officer is in certain circumstances entitled to claim the benefit of the exception to criminal liability set out in section 69 of the Penal Code.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Nuwara Eliya.

The 1st appellant, an Inspector of Police, and the 2nd and 3rd appellants, who were police constables, were convicted of using criminal force on, and attempting wrongfully to confine, one M. The evidence showed that the appellants went to the house of M. in order to inquire into a complaint of a cognizable offence. Originally M. was " asked " or " invited " by the 1st appellant to accompany the police party to the police station and M. agreed to do so. Later, however, M. changed his mind and refused to go with the police officers, whereupon the 1st appellant, in the trial Judge's opinion, " took exception to the manner in which M. spoke or behaved " and ordered M 's arrest in order to " teach him a lesson ". The subsequent attempts to remove M. forcibly were made without any further intimation to him of the reasons for his proposed compulsory detention or arrest.

G. E. Chitty, with O. M. de Alwis, for the 1st accused appellant.

G. E. Chitty, with A. S. Vanigasooriar, for the 2nd and 3rd accused appellants.

A. E. Keuneman, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 28, 1954. GRATIAEN J.-

The 1st appellant was at the relevant time an Inspector of Police in charge of the Nuwara Eliya Police Station, while the 2nd and 3rd appellants were police constables attached to the same station. They were jointly indicted in the District Court of Nuwara Eliya for the following offences :

(1) committing house-trespass by entering the residence of F. D. Munaweera on 30th August 1949 with intent (a) to use criminal force on him, (b) wrongfully to confine him and (c) to annoy him;

(2) using criminal force on him in attempting wrongfully to confine him;

(3) attempting wrongfully to confine him.

The 1st appellant was in addition charged in the 4th count of the indictment with having caused grievous hurt to Munaweera in the course of the same transaction by shooting him. They were all convicted on the 2nd and 3rd counts, but orders of acquittal were entered in respect of counts 1 and 4.

A particularly unsatisfactory feature of this case was that, although such serious offences were alleged to have been committed in August 1949, and Munaweera's complaint was brought to the immediate notice of an Assistant Superintendent of Police, non-summary proceedings against the appellants were not commenced until 1st June 1951, and that too at the instance of Munaweera in the exercise of his rights as a private citizen ; the indictment was presented on 10th September 1952 ; the trial was concluded on 25th March 1953 ; and the present appeal listed for hearing only on 19th May 1954. These delays speak for themselves.

In Muttusamy v. Kannangara 1[(1951)62N. L .R. 824.] I pointed out that " the actions of po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document