116-NLR-NLR-V-60-THE-QUEEN-v.-J.-A.-ALPIN-SINGHO.pdf
. BASNAYAKE, C.J.—The Queen v. Alpin Singho ' ^ ^ ■» " 455
■ •V . ,’..'..I' . •■
tr~77~~'^/ jr^-V h7
[In the Court of Criminal Appeal]
Present: Basnayake, C.J. (President), Pulle, J., and .H. N. G. Fernando, J.THE QUEEN V. J. A. ALPIN SINGHO. Appeal No. 122 of 1958, with Application No. 158
'.‘8. C. 2—M. C. Colombo, 5,809
■ Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations of 1958—Regulation 22”—Sentence for offence thereunder—Public Security Ordinance, No. 25 of 1947,s. 5.
In. a case where the Judge deoides to impose the punishment of imprisonmentinstead of death for an offence against Regulation 22 of the Emergency (Miscella-neous Provisions and Powers) Regulations published in Gazette No. 11,321 of27th May, 1958, he may impose a sentence short of imprisonment for life.
A
XiLPPEAL against a conviction in a trial before the Supreme Court.Nimal 8enanayake (Assigned), for the Accused-Appellant.
V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. mtlt.
January 13, 1959. Basnayake, C.J.—
The only question that arises for determination on this appeal iswhether in a case where the Judge decides to impose the punishment ofimprisonment instead of death for an offence against Regulation 22 ofthe Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulationspublished in Gazette No. 11,321 of 27th May, 1958, he may impose a .sentence short of imprisonment for life.
The material portion of that regulation reads“ 22. (1) Any person who
.. (a) does, with fire or any combustible matter ….
commits theft of any article ….
■- (c) does any act intending ….
commits any offence ….
is a member of an unlawful assembly ….
shall be guilty of an offence against this regulation and, notwithstandinganything in the Penal Code or in these regulations, shall, on convictionthereof before the Supreme Court, be liable to suffer death or imprison-ment of either description for life.”
456
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—-The Queen v. Alpin Singho
The learned Commissioner has construed the regulation as making itobligatory on him to impose imprisonment for life. In construingidentical words in regulation 27D (1) (6) of the Emergency Powers (De-fence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, this Court in the case of The King v. PuncUBanda1 construed the words “ be liable to suffer death or imprisonment forlife ” as enabling the trial Judge, to impose a term of imprisonment shortof life imprisonment. It is a well-established rule of construction of sta-tutes that “ where an Act of Parliament has received a judicial construc-tion putting a certain meaning on its words, and the Legislature in asubsequent Act in pari materia uses the same words, there is a presumptionthat the Legislature used those words intending to express the meaningwhich it knew had been put upon the same words before; and, unlessthere is something to rebut that presumption, the Act should be so cons-trued, even if the words were such that they might originally have beenconstrued otherwise.” (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Camerona;Royal Court Derby Porcelain Co. v. Russell3.)
The learned Commissioner of Assize should therefore have construedthe words in the sense in which they were construed in Punchi Banda'scase {supra) and considered what term of imprisonment was appropriatefor the offence committed by the appellant.
We are of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case,a term of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment on each of the counts 1 and 2would meet the ends of justice. These sentences and the others imposedby the learned Commissioner of Assize under section 437 of the PenalCode, and count No. 4, should run concurrently.
Subject to the above variation in the sentence imposed on counts 1 and2, the appeal is dismissed and the application refused.
Sentence varied.
2 (1864-6$) 11 B. L. C. 443 at 480.(1949) 2K.B. 417 at 429.
1 (1942) 44 N. L. B. 327.