092-NLR-NLR-V-57-A.-M.-JAUFFER-Appellant-and-N.-W.-ALEXANDER-S.-I.Police-Respondent.pdf
1956.Present: Sanson!, J. .A. M. JAUFFER, Appellant-, and X. W. ALEXANDER(S. I. Police), Respondent
S. C. 1,497—M. C. Kandy, -2,495
Belliny on Horse Racing Ordinance (Cap. -Jtt)—Section 17 (6)—Possession of instru-ments of unlawful betting—Not an offence.
Possessing instruments of unlawful betting is not per se an offence underSection 17 (6) of tho Betting on Horse Pacing Ordinance.
_/^_PPEALi from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Kandy.
P. Somalilalcam, for the accused appellant.
V. .S'. A. Pullenaytgum, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
March 21, 1056. Saxsoxi, J.—-
I find that there is a charge-sheet in this case which charges the accusedon two counts. On the first count he is charged with committing theoffence of receiving or negotiating a bet on a horse race in breach ofSection 3 (3) (b) of the Betting on Horse Racing Ordinance (Cap. 3G).On the second count he is charged with having in his possession instru-ments of unlawful betting in breach of Section 17 (6) of the Ordinance.Xo offence is created by Section 17 (6), which only allows the Court todraw a presumption, under certain conditions when a person is found inpossession of instruments of unlawful betting.
I find that this mistake as to what Section 17 (i) means is continuallybeing repgated in cases that have come up in appeal. The learned Magis-trate has fined the'accusedl Rs. 250. I do not know whether he imposedthis fine because he thought the accused had committed two offences oronty one. One can only hope that in future there will be no such chargebrought against an accused person as that he had in his possession instru-ments of unlawful betting.'■ .
The conviction and sentence on count 1 are affirmed. The conviction-on count 2 is set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.