Karunaratne e. Karunaratne
1959
Present:
KARUNARATNE,
366-
B asnayake, C.J., and K . D . de S ilv a , J.
A p p ella n t
and
KARUNARATNE.
R esp o n d en t
S. C. 903— D. C. Panadura, 3944
Action for malicious prosecution— Ingredients necessary— Criminal Procedure Code,
ss. 21, 120, 148 (1) (b)— Penal Code, s. 418.
To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must establish
that the charge was false, and false to the knowledge o f the person giving the
information, that it was made with a view to prosecution, that it was made
animo injuriandi and not with a view to vindicate public justice, and that it
was made without probable cause.
366
A
BASNAYAKH, C.J.—K arunaratne v . Karunaratne
ppe a l
from a ju d g m en t o f th e D istr ic t Court, Panadura.
H. W. Jayewardene, Q.C., w ith D. R. P . GoonetiUeke an d L. C. Seneviratne, for D efen d a n t-A p p ella n t.
A . G. Gunaratne, w ith G. L. L . de Silva, for P lain tiff-R esp on d en t.
A u g u st 3 , 1959.
B a s n a y a k e , C .J.—
T h e p la in tiff in stitu te d th is a ctio n for th e recovery o f a su m o f R s. 5 000
a s d am ages w h ich h e a lleged he suffered jn consequence o f th e follow ing
a c t s co m m itted b y th e d e f e n d a n t :—
(a) t h a t th e d e fe n d a n t com p lain ed to th e In sp ector o f P o lic e , K ah atu d u w a , t h a t th e p la in tiff w ith in te n t t o cause d am age to th e
d e fe n d a n t d id s e t fire to om nibus N o . CE 5520, p roperty in th e
p ossession o f th e d efen d an t, and th a t th e p lain tiff did th ereb y
cau se d am age t o th e d efen d an t to th e e x te n t o f R s. 1,100.
( b) th a t th e d e fe n d a n t fa lsely a n d m aliciou sly m ad e a com p lain t to th e
K a h a tu d u w a P o lice to induce an d in stig a te th e p olice to in sti­
tu te a crim inal a c tio n ag a in st th e p lain tiff an d th e d efen d an t
fu rth er provided th e police w ith false w itn esses t o su p p ort th e
said fa lse co m p la in t ag a in st th e plaintiff.
(c) th a t in con seq u en ce o f th e false com p lain t th e p la in tiff w a s ta k en
in to c u sto d y b y th e p olice, and
(d) th a t h e w as charged in th e M agistrate’s Court o f H oran a in case
N o . 15397 o f th a t court.
T h e p la in tiff fu rth er alleg ed th a t th e d efen d a n t a cted w ron gfu lly, u n ­
law fu lly and m a licio u sly an d w ith o u t reasonable an d /or probable cause
in m ak in g th e c o m p la in t an d inducing and in stigatin g th e in stitu tio n o f
crim inal p roceed in gs a g a in st him . T he d efen d an t denied th e a llegation s
b u t sta te d th a t o n 3rd A u g u st 1953 he g a v e inform ation to th e police
th a t a bu s o f w h ich he w a s a co-ow ner had b een burnt a n d th a t o n e Charles
inform ed him t h a t h e h a d seen th e p la in tiff a n d tw o others ru n n in g a w a y
from near t h a t bus.
A t th e trial t h e follow in g issu es w ere fram ed :—
“ 1. D id t h e d e ft on or a b o u t 3 . 8 . 5 3 com plain t o th e p olice a t
K a h a tu d u w a t h a t plff w ith in te n t t o cau se lo ss an d d am age t o th e d e ft
s e t fire to bus CE 5520 ?
“ 2. D id t h e d e ft further p rovid e th e p olice w ith false w itn esses in
su p p ort o f th e sa id com p la in t ?
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—KamnarcUne v . K arunaratne
3« r
“ 3. D id d e ft retain a proctor t o a s sist t h e p o lice in th e prosecution,
o f th e case in stitu te d ag a in st th e p lff ?
“ 4.
W as th e p lff prosecuted a s a resu lt o f th e said co m p la in t in.
MC 15397 H oran a ?
" 5.
W as p lff acq u itted o f t h e sa id charge ?
“ 6. W as th e said com p lain t fa lse a n d m alicious a n d w ith o u t
reasonable or probable cause ?
“ 7.
I f so, w h a t dam ages is th e p lff e n title d to recover from the-
d e ft i ”
B riefly th e fa cts are a s f o llo w s : O n 3rd A u g u st, 1953 th e d efen d a n t
m a d e th e follow in g sta tem en t a t th e K a h a tu d u w a P o lice S ta tio n which,
w a s recorded b y P olice C onstable (N o . 407) P erera—
“ H apuarachige D o n D a v id K aru n aratn e, 38 years, c u ltiv a to r, liv e
a t W elm illa, com es to th e sta tio n a n d com plains, a bus b elon g t o
“ Sam sen Perera L td . ” u su a lly p ark ed a t m y prem ises for th e n ig h t
and I am also a share holder. L a st n ig h t a t a b ou t 2 a.m . I w as
sleep in g in th e house. There w a s o n e T h o m a s sleep in g in th e veran d ah
a n d a n o th er driver w as sleeping in th e o th er bus w hich w as a lso p a rk ed
in th e sam e prem ises belongs t o m e. O ne Charles w as also sleep in g
in th e rear verandah. J u s t th en I heard Charles sh ou tin g a n d sa y in g
th e bus w as o n fire. I im m ed ia tely g o t u p from m y sleep follow ed
b y th e o th er inm ates and cam e o u t o f th e h o u se and w en t tow ard s th e
b u s w h ich w as on fire. W e all sta rted t o p u t th e fire dow n b y pouring
w a ter and brought it under con trol. W h en everyth in g w as o ver
Charles to ld m e th a t he w as w ak en a s a resu lt o f som e noise and he
n o ticed 3 m en nam ely Charles M a h a tm a y a , A brham and B a b y Sin gh o
w ere running a w ay from th e bus. H e sa w th e m clearly and id en tified
th e m w ith th e aid o f th e flam e. T here w a s n on e in th e bus and w e
d isco v ered a closed tin o f petrol from und er th e bus. T his Charles
M a h a tm a y a is a close relation o f m in e and is a n g ry w ith m e o v er so m e
land d isp u te and th e other tw o su sp ects are n o t angry w ith m e. B u t
A brham is working under Charles M a h a tm a y a as a w atcher. I d id
n o t ex a m in e th e bus to find o u t th e d a m a g es b u t cam e d irect to inform
P o lice. Therefore I shall find o u t th e d a m a g es and inform th e P o lice
la ter. T h is is all I h a v e to sta te.
I n consequence o f th a t sta te m e n t S u b -In sp ecto r A nth on isz o f th e K a h a ­
tu d u w a P o lice S ta tio n in v estig a ted th e co m p la in t, nam ely, o f s e ttin g
fire to a bus ow ned b y Sam son P erera L im ite d w h ich w as garaged in a
sh e d ad join in g th e house o f th e d efen d a n t. I n th e course o f th e in v e s ti­
g a tio n s h e recorded th e sta tem en ts o f Charles, J o h a n n es and P . A . M artin
A lw is. A s th e nam es o f th o s e .w itn e s s e s w ere g iv e n b y th e d e fe n d a n t,
th e S u b -In sp ector asked him to prod u ce th e m before him and h e d id so..
868
BASNAYAKE, CJ . —Karunaratne v. Karunaratne
I t w ou ld ap pear t h a t Joh a n n es is th e sam e person a s J o h a n is K arunaratne w h o g a v e ev id en ce in th e crim inal prosecu tion . I n consequence
o f th e in v estig a tio n s m ade b y S u b -In sp ector A n th o n isz, a report under
se c tio n 148 (1) (6) o f th e Criminal Procedure Code w as m ade to th e
M agistrate’s C ourt allegin g th a t th e plaintiff, P . L iy a n a g e Abraham ,
a n d P a n a god age B a b y Singho, h a d s e t fire to bus N o . CE 5520 property
in th e p o ssessio n o f th e d efen d a n t a n d t h a t t h e y h a d th ereb y caused
d a m a g e t o th e e x te n t o f R s. 1,100. A m ong th e w itn esses w ho were
m e n tio n e d in th e report w ere H . A . D a v id K aru n aratn e, D en u p itiyage
Charles a n d H . A . J u w a n is K arunaratne. Sum m ons w ere issued o n th e
a ccu sed returnable o n 17th Septem ber 1953 and on t h a t d a te th e police
m o v ed for a d a te to am end th e p lain t. On 1 st O ctober 1953, after
recording th e ev id en ce o f S u b -In sp ector A n th o n isz, th e M agistrate,
a c tin g under sectio n 152 (3) o f t h e Criminal P rocedure Code, decided
' t o tr y th e case sum m arily as A d d itio n a l D istr ic t J u d g e a n d a fresh
charge w a s rea d t o th e accused. T h a t charge a lleged th a t th e y had
co m m itted a n offence punishable und er sectio n 4 18 o f th e P en al Code.
T h e ow ner o f th e bus Sam son Perera L im ited retain ed a law yer t o w atch
it s in terests a n d th e prosecution w as in th e han d s o f Sub-Insp ector
A n th on isz. W hen th e case cam e up for trial o n 1 2 th N ovem ber 1953
S u b -In sp ector A nthonisz h ad been transferred and S u b -In sp ector E kan a y a k e led ev id en ce for th e prosecution. On th a t d a y th e evidence
o f Jo h a n is K arunaratne w as recorded an d a fter h is cross-exam ination
th e M agistrate m ad e th e follow ing record :—
“ A t th is sta g e th e prosecuting In sp ector sta te s t h a t he does n o t
w ish to proceed a n y further w ith th is case, as th e e v id en ce o f th e last
w itn ess is o b v io u sly q u ite false, and m o v es to w ithdraw . I entirely
agree w ith th e prosecuting In sp ector th a t th is w itn ess is speaking
u tte r falseh ood and h a s g o t h im self com p letely tie d up in th e sam e.
I n th e circum stances, I allow th e ap p lica tio n to w ithdraw , and I
acq u it th e accused. ”
T he ev id en ce recorded b y th e M agistrate does n o t ju s tify th e conclusion
o f th e learned D istrict J u d g e th a t there w as n o reasonable or probable
cause for th e d efen d a n t to have m a d e a com p la in t to th e police. The
d efen d a n t a t no tim e alleged th a t th e p la in tiff s e t fire to th e om nibus.
T he co m p lain t to th e police w as n o t th a t th e p la in tiff s e t fire to th e bus
b u t t h a t Charles inform ed him after th e fire had been p u t o u t th a t he had
n o ticed three m en, on e o f w hom w a s th e p laintiff, running a w ay from
th e bus. T here is also n o ev id en ce to ju stify th e learned D istr ic t J u d g e’s
conclusion th a t th e d efen d a n t provided th e p olice w ith w itn esses in su p ­
p ort o f his com p lain t. T he police a fter in v estig a tio n d ecided to m ake a
report under sectio n 148 (1) (b) o f th e Criminal Procedure Code after
th e y w ere satisfied th a t there w a s a case a g a in st th e accused. Section
126 o f th e Criminal P rocedure Code p rovides th a t—
“ I f u p o n a n in v estig a tio n under th is C hapter i t appears to th e
officer in charge o f th e police s ta tio n or th e inquirer t h a t there is n o t
sufficien t ev id en ce or reasonable ground o f su sp icio n to ju stify th e
BA8NAYAKE, C.J.—K arunaratne v. K arvn araln e
36»
forw arding o f t h e accu sed to a M agistrate’s C ourt, su c h officer or in ­
quirer sh a ll i f su c h person is in cu sto d y release h im o n h is e x e c u tin g
a bond w ith or w ith o u t sureties as su ch officer o r inquirer m a y d ir e c t
t o appear i f a n d w hen so required before a M a g istr a te ’s C ourt h a v in g
ju risd iction t o t r y or inquire in to th e offence. ”
In th e in s ta n t c a se t h e police w ere satisfied t h a t a rep o rt u nder se c tio n
148 (1) (6) sh o u ld be m ad e. T he a lleg a tio n t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t retain ed
a proctor t o a s s is t th e p olice in th e p rosecu tion o f t h e case is n o t borne
o u t b y th e record. T h e record show s t h a t a p roctor w a s retain ed b y th e
owners o f th e o m n ib u s an d th a t th e p rosecu tor w a s a p olice officer.
I n regard t o th e issu e w hether th e p la in tiff w a s p r o se c u te d a s a resu lt o f
th e com p lain t i t w o u ld appear th a t th e p o lice m a d e a rep ort t o th e
M agistrate’s C ourt under th e appropriate se c tio n o f t h e Crim inal P roce­
dure Code u p o n b ein g satisfied on in v e stig a tio n t h a t th ere w a s a c a se
w h ich sh ou ld be b rou gh t to court. T h e learn ed D is tr ic t J u d g e h a s also
h eld th a t th e c o m p la in t m ad e b y th e d efen d a n t w a s fa lse a n d th a t th ere
is evid en ce t o su p p o r t th a t finding. A g o o d d e a l o f e v id e n c e h as b een
le d to sh ow th a t th e feelin gs betw een th e p la in tiff a n d t h e d e fe n d a n t w ere
b itter in con seq u en ce o f lan d d isp u tes, b u t t h a t d o e s n o t p rove t h a t t h e
d efen d a n t’s c o m p la in t th a t th e bus w h ich w a s g a ra g ed a d join in g t h e
d efen d a n t’s h o u se w as s e t on fire on 3rd A u g u st 1953 is false. I t w a s
estab lish ed a s a fa c t. In th e case o f Saravanamuttu v. Kanagasabai 1
H ow ard C.J. su m s u p th e principle o f Jaw o n m a lic io u s p rosecu tion th u s :
“ T h e cases t h a t I h a v e cited esta b lish a s a clear principle o f law
th a t there m u s t be som eth in g m ore th a n a m ere g iv in g o f in form ation
to th e P o lic e or o th e r au th o rity w ho in s titu te s a p ro secu tio n . ”
I n a ctio n s for m alicio u s prosecution th e p ro v isio n o f se c tio n 21 o f t h e
Criminal P roced u re Code m u st n o t be overlook ed . T h a t se c tio n p r o v id e s :
“ E v e r y p erson aw are—
(a) o f th e co m m issio n o f or th e in te n tio n o f a n y o th e r p erson t o com m it
a n y offen ce punishab le under th e fo llo w in g s e c tio n s o f th e P en al
Code, n a m e ly , 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
126, 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 371, 380, 381, 382, 383, 3 8 4 , 4 1 8 , 4 1 9 , 4 3 5 , 436,
442, 4 4 3 , 4 4 4 , 445, an d 4 4 6 ;
(b) o f a n y su d d en or unn atu ral d ea th or d e a th b y v io le n c e , or o f a n y
d e a th u n d er suspicious circu m stan ces, or o f t h e b o d y o f a n y
person b ein g fou n d d ead w ith o u t i t b e in g k n o w n h ow such
person c a m e b y death,
shall in th e a b sen ce o f reasonable ex cu se— t h e b u rd en o f p rovin g w h ich
shall lie u p on t h e person so aw are-^-forthw ith g iv e in form ation to
th e n earest M agistrate’s Court or to th e officer in ch arge o f th e n earest
p olice s ta tio n or t o a peace officer or th e h ea d m a n o f t h e n earest v illa g e
o f such co m m ission or in ten tio n or o f su ch su d d e n u n n a tu ra l or v io le n t
d ea th or d e a th u n d er suspicious circu m stan ces o r o f th e finding o f
such d ead b o d y . ”
1 (1942) 43 N. L. R. 357.
Patkirane v. Pathirane
370
T h e offence co m m itted w a s o n e under se c tio n 4 18 a n d th e defen d an t
'being aw are o f i t w as in la w bound, to g iv e inform ation forth w ith to th e
n ea rest M agistrate’s C ourt or officer in charge o f th e nearest p olice sta tio n
-or to a peace officer or h eadm an. A person w ho discharges a leg a l d u ty
is free from lia b ility for h is a c t e v e n w h en th e discharge o f his d u ty h urts
a n o th er (De Villiers on Injuries . p . 39). I t is o n ly w h en he g o es beyon d
“th e lim its o f h is leg a l o b lig a tio n or a c ts a ltogeth er ou tsid e it t h a t h e
m a y render h im se lf lia b le (ibid.).
I n th e in s ta n t ca se th e p la in tiff h a s fa iled to esta b lish a n y th in g m ore
th a n a m ere g iv in g o f inform ation to th e p o lice auth orities, and is there­
fore n o t e n title d to su cceed . T o su cceed in an a ction o f th is nature th e
p la in tiff m u st esta b lish th a t th e charge w as fa lse, and false to th e know ­
led g e o f th e person g iv in g th e in form ation , th a t it w as m ade w ith a view
■to prosecution, th a t it w as m ad e animo injuriandi and n o t w ith a v iew to
v in d ica te p u b lic ju stice, a n d t h a t i t w a s m a d e w ith o u t probable cause.
I n th e in sta n t ca se th e p la in tiff h a s fa iled t o discharge th e burden th a t
r e s ts o n him .
W e therefore s e t aside th e ju d g m en t o f th e learned D istr ic t J u d ge and
dism iss th e p la in tiff’s a c tio n w ith costs. T h e defen d an t is e n title d to
t h e costs o f th e appeal.
de
Silva, J .— I agree.
Appeal allowed.