101-NLR-NLR-V-57-ALFRED-APPUHAMY-Appellant-and-D.-G.-A.-DE-SILVA-S.-I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
1955J* resent : Sansoni, J.ALFRED APPl'HAMV, Appellant, and D. G. A. DESILVA {S. I. Police), RespondentS. C. J,33/—A/. C. Colombo, 19,507
LorryCarriage of good–: in excess of mctxinnnn load—Weigh bridge—Is evidence of
ils accuracy necessary /—Motor Traffic Act, JVo. 14 of 10-11, ss. 100, 210
V) («)■-‘•
The accused was charged with having carried on a lorry goods in excess of thepermitted maximum load, in bre-vh of Section 100 read with Section 210
(I) (<i) of Jlic Molor Traffic Act. The prosccut ion wit m-.-tsi-.-s staled t hat nn excessweight of 2 tons on(i 7 lbs. was ascertained by means of a weigh-bridge. Xoevidence was called for the defence.•„
Held, that it wjis open to the Court to hold that, the load in the lorry was2 tons and 7 lbs. in excess; even though the weigh-bridge had not. been testedfor over four weeks prior In I ho day when the lorry with its loud was weighedon it….-
PPE.Ah from a judgment of Hie Magistrate's Court, Colombo.Shtnh-ij ilr. Zni/.in, with P. Paha-tin'/hc, fm- the accused appellant.
Dm/ii Pt-rcrn, Crown Counsel, for (lie .At(orney-CJeneraI.
Our. nth", mil.
March 20. I950. S.wxnsr. J.—
'J’lie accused, who was (he. driver of lorry Xo. TO 2/540, was convictedoji a charge of having carried 2 tons0 cwts 0 (jrs 7 lbs. of goods in excessof the weight which the lorry was licensed to carry, in breach of S. JOOread with S. 216 (1) (a) of the Motor Traffic Act Xo. 14 of 19:51. Theprosecution witnesses stated that the lorry in question was weighedwith its load of vegetables at the Grandpass weigh-bridge, and the excessweight thus ascertained. An Engineer of Messrs. Avery & Co. gaveevidence that the •weigh-bridge in question was maintained b}' his firmand that it was last tested on 2Sth June 1955 ; the offence was detectedon 2nd August 1955.-
Xo evidence was called for the defence. The accused’s Proctor sub-mitted that the charge had not been established as the accuracy of theweigh bridge at the time in question had not been proved. The learnedMagistrate accepted the evidence of the Engineer who had spoken tohaving tested the machine. He also commented on the absence of anyevidence for the defence and rejected a suggestion that the lorry carriedonly a small quantity of chillies. *•'
In ap])cal it was urged that the accused should have been acquitted inviewof the judgment of Soertsz. A.J., in Soysa v. James Sinrjho*, where tlielearned Judge said that it was desirable that a loadometcr (which wasthe machine used in that ease) should be tested soon after it had bcc—used, to see that it was accurate at the crucial time. ‘ In Simian v.2/isXhi Koch, J., exjiresscd a similar opinion in regard to a stojiwatch which had been used to detect a case of exceeding the speed limit.
If these decisions arc binding on me I should have no alternative butto allow this appeal. Those decisions also have the support of theDivisional Court judgment in Afelfntish v. Morris 3, which laid down thatbefore a speedometer reading can be acted upon there must be evidenceof.the accuracy of the speedometer. Charles, J., in that case saiil :
* (JO.3-5) 3S X. L. R. 12." ' ‘.» (193G) 3S N.R. R. 239.
■3 (1033) 4 A. E. R. 93.
“ (),c case rested upon the accuracy of the specdomelcr, -which liadnot been tested …. it. does not matter if five officers gluedtheir eyes to the speedometer if evidence is not given as to its accuracy ”.
Learned Grown Counsel drew my attention to the later judgmentof the Divisional Court in the case of Nicholas v. Penny h In that casethe accused was charged with exceeding the speed limit of thirty miles2>cr hour. The evidence against him was that of a Police Constablewho followed the accused’s car for a distance of 4/lOths of a mile at aneven distance, and found that the speedometer in the Police car showedan even speed of forty miles per hour. Lord Goddard. C.J., consideredthe question whether it was necessary as a matter of law that the Courtmust have evidence that the speedometer was tested before the speedo-meter reading can bo accepted. He refused to follow the decision inMclhnish r. Morris 3 and held that the evidence as to the speedometerreading was admissible and was prima facie evidence on which Justicescan act. He said that in a particular case they might refuse to act onsuch evidence, owing to the cross-examination of the prosecution wit-nesses, or the evidence given on the other side, which might cause themto reject the prosecution case ; or again, the speedometer reading mayshow that, the accused was driving at a speed which was just over thespeed limit. Ultimately, however, it is a matter for Justices to saywhether they are satisfied that the accused was travelling at a speed inexcess of thirty miles per hour and they can be satisfied about it- on theevidence which was given, apart from any evidence as to the accuracyof the speedometer.
Following this decision, I would hold that it was open to the learnedMagistrate in this case to hold that the load in the lorry was 2 tons0 cwts 0 cjrs 7 lbs. in excess, even though t he weigh-bridge had nc-t beentested for over four weeks prior to the day in question. I thereforedismiss this appeal.
. ! p peril dismiss/ d.