006-NLR-NLR-V-18-ASSISTANT-GOVERNMENT-AGENT,-KEGALLA,-v.-PODI-SINNO-et-al.pdf

( 28 )
1M4.
Present : Pereira J.
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT AGENT, KEGALLA, v.
PODI SINNO et ah
58S—P. 0. Regatta, 18,092.
Judgment delivered .v/.r months after trial—Irregularity—Criminal Procedure”
Codef 190.’
Where a Magistrate delivered his judgment and recorded hisverdict more than six months after the close of the trial of a case*—
Held, that in view of the provision of sectiou 190 of the CriminalProcedure Code, the delay could not -be regarded a6 a mereinnocuous irregularity.
fjp HE facts appear from the judgment.
Elliott and Samarawickreme, for accused, appellant.van Langenbergt K.C., S.-Q.. for respondent.
Cnr. adv. vult.
July 29, 1914. Pereira J.—
In this case the trial appears to have closed on the 1st December,1913, but the Magistrate appears to have delivered his judgmentand recorded his verdict on the 9th June, 1914. Under section 190of the Criminal Procedure Code a verdict in, a Police Court caseshould be recorded immediately (” forthwith ”) after the close ofthe evidence, and a delay of more than six months cannot be treatedas an innocuous irregularity. In Venasy v. Vclati5 Bonser G.J.emphasized the desirability of the finding as to the guilt or innocenceof the accused being recorded by the Magistrate immediately at theconclusion of the trial. In Rodrigo v. Fernando2 Withers J. expressedhimself to the same effect, and observed that if in the case he wasdealing with the objection on the ground of the irregularity involvedhad beer, pressed, he should have been obliged to remit the case fora new trial. In 9,292—P. C. Panadure3 Lawrie A.C.J. said that thepronouncement by a Magistrate of the verdict in a case a monthafter the trial was ultra vires; and finally, in The King v. Fernando*Wendt J. thought that a delay of two days by a District Judge inpronouncing his verdict in a case was an irregularity, but that itdid not vitiate the proceedings, unless it had occasioned a failureof justice. In the prescufc case, as observed already, there has beena delay of over six months, and I do not think that- it will be fair tothe accused to apply the saving provision of section 425 of theCriminal Procedure Code to so great an irregularity.
I quash the conviction and proceedings ab initio
Proceedings quashed.
> (1895) 1 N. L. n. m.a (1901) 5 N. b. R. 140.
* (1599) 4 N. L. R. 110.« (1900) 9 BaL 40.