041-NLR-NLR-V-65-H.-COORAY-Appellant-and-M.-H.-PEIRIS-Building-Inspector-Municipal-Council-.pdf
192
ABEYKSUNDERE, J.—Cooray v. Peiris
1962Present: A bey es unde re, J.H. COORAY, Appellant, and M. H. FBQUS (Building Inspector,Municipal Council), Respondent
8. C. 1072—M. C. Kandy, 7075Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance—Section 13 (1) (a)—Conviction there-under—Sentence.
When & person is convicted of the offence of contravening section 13 (l) (o) ofthe Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, the Court has no jurisdictionto impose a daily fine in anticipation of the offence being continued afterconviction.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Kandy.
N. Senanayake, for accused-appellant.
W. Jayetoardene, Q.C., with W. D. Gunasekera, for complainant-respondent.
November 27, 1962. ABEyEsrrNDEBJS, J.—
The accused in this case was convicted of the offence of contraveningSection 13 (1) (a) of the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinanceand was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 and to “ a daily fine of Rs. 25for every day on which the offence is continued
The Section referred to enables a daily fine of Rs. 25 to be imposed forevery day on which the offence is continued after conviction. Thecontinuing of the offence after conviction is itself an offence which ifproved will make the person committing that offence liable to the dailyfine referred to. The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to imposethe daily fine in anticipation of the offence being continued afterconviction.
therefore, set aside such part of the sentence passed on the accusedas relates to “ a daily fine of Rs. 25 for every day on which the offence iscontinued The conviction is affirmed.
Conviction affirmed. Sentence partly set aside.