Kandiah V. S. I. Police, Norton Bridge

1964 Present: Tambiah, J.

R. P. KANDIAH and 2 others, Appellants, and S. I. POLICE,
 NORTON BRIDGE, Respondent

S. C. 85-87/64-M. C. Hatton 7,876

Criminal procedure-Summary procedure-Charge-Different offence of attempt disclosed in course of proceedings-Duty to frame fresh charge-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 152 (3) 193(1).

Evidence-Witness-Indivisibility of credibility-Corroboration.

              Where, in a prosecution for an offence triable summarily, the accused is found guilty of having attempted to commit the offence with which he is charged, the Magistrate must, under section 193 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, frame a fresh charge before he can convict the accused of attempting to commit the offence.

              It is not permissible, in a criminal case, to disbelieve a witness on a material point and, at the same time, believe him on other points without corroborative evidence.

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

                  Colvin R. de Silva, with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for 1st to 3rd accused-appellants.

                  D. S. Wijesinghe, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

March 13, 1964. TAMBIAH, J.-

The appellants were charged on the following counts :-

           (1) The first accused did cheat by personation T. Vythilingampillai of Lonach Division by pretending to him that he was a " Price Control Inspector" and did thereby dishonestly induce the said T. Vythilingampillai to deliver him a sum of Rs. 1,500, to avoid a prosecution and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 402 of the Penal Code, Chapter 19 L.E.C.
 
         (2) At the time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the 2nd and 3rd accused did cheat by personation T. Vythilingampillai of Lonach Division by pretending to him that they were officers of the C. I. D. and did thereby dishonestly induce the said T. Vythilingampillai to deliver a sum of Rs. 1,500 to the 1st accused and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 402 read with section 32 L.E.C.

        (3) At the time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the above said 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused did attempt to commit extortion by putting T. Vythilingampillai of Lonach Division in fear of injury to his reputation by prosecuting him under the Food Control Act for possession of imported

rice and in such attempt did do an act towards the commission of the offence of extortion to wit by demanding that a sum of Rs. 1,500 be paid to the 1st accused to avoid the prosecution under the Food Control Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 373 read with section 490 and section 32 of the Penal Code, Chapter 19 L.E.C.

        (4) At the time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the above said 2nd accused did commit theft of cash Rs. 59 from the drawer of T. Vythilingampillai boutique, property in the possession of the said T. Vythilingampillai and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 369 of the Penal Code.

       (5) At the time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the above named 2nd and 3rd accused did commit theft of 2 bags of country rice valued at Rs. 125, 6 1/2 Ibs. of imported rice valued at 81 cts. and 12 1/2 Ibs. of white country rice valued at Re. 1-62 cts. all to the value of Rs. 127.21 -from the boutique of T. Vythilingampillai and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 369 read with section 32 of the Penal Code, Chapter 19 L.E.C.

      (6) At the time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction, the above named 4th accused did aid and abet the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused in the commission of the offence of cheating by personation T. Vythilingampillai of Lonach Division by pretending to him that the 1st accused was the Price Control Inspector and the 2nd and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document