042-NLR-NLR-V-57-J.-H.-DAVID-SILVA-Appellant-and-D.-R.-O.-KOLONNA-KORALE-Respondent.pdf
1955Present : Fernando, J.
i.
J. H. DAVID SILVA, Appellant, and D. R. O., KOLONNAKORALE, Respondent
S. C. 716 of 1955—M. C. Rakwana, 46,051
Forest- Ordinance—Section 20—Prosecution for unlawfully clearing Crown land—Quantum of evidence.
The appellant was charged with unlawfully clearing about two acres of Crownland described as “ Lot IS in Village Plan 75S ”, in breach of section 20 of theForest Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder. It appeared from theevidenco that the two acres in question were surrounded on all sides by landnot occupied by the Crown. The only evidence alleging that- the land in questionwas Lot IS and Crown Forest was the bare statement of tho Village Headman.
‘ Tho Plan itself was not produced with technical evidence to show that the twoacres in question constituted Lot IS in the Plan..
Held, that' the evidence was insufficient to establish that tho land in questionwas Crown land."
j/^k.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Rakwana.
Sir Lalila Rajapak-se. Q.C., with S. If. Mohamed, for the accused-appellant.
Shiva Pasupali, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vuJt.
Octobor If), 1955. Fernando, J.—
Tho appellant was charged with unlawfully clearing “ about two acresof a land called ‘ Galbokuoya Reservation ’ more particularly describedas Lot IS in Village Plan 75S which is a land at the disposal of tho Crown ”,in breach of section 20 of the Forest Ordinance and tho rules framedthereunder. The only evidenco in proof of the allegation that the landis “ land at the disposal of the Crown ” was that of the Village Headmanwho stated that tho land is named “ Galbokuoya ”, that it is describedas Lot 18 in Plan 758 and that it is a Crown Forest. It appeared fromhis evidence that the two .acres which had been cleared were boundedon the North and South respectively by Village Committee roads and onthe East by a land purchased by tho accused and on the West by someold fields, a description which indicates that tho two acres in questionare surrounded on all sides by land not occupied by the Crown.
It was elicited in cross-examination from the same witness that at aninquiry by a Settlement Officer in 1952 tho accused claimed the twoacres and that the officer kept the deeds which the accused produced.Later however the witness said that no such claim was made. Thedefence called no evidence and the appellant was convicted of the offencecharged. In my opinion the evidence was insufficient to establish thatthe land in question is Crown Land. The statement in the charge thatthe land in question is described as Lot IS in Village Plan 75S mustpresumably have been made on the basis that Lot IS is known to be,and would be shown by the Plan to be, land at the disposal of the Crown.If tho Plan itself had been produced together with technical ovidenceto establish that the two acres in question constitute Lot IS in tho Plan,then there would be no doubt as to the identity of tho land. But allwe have hero is a bare statement by the Headman that the land in questionis Lot IS and is Crown Forest. Moreover there was the ovidence by theHeadman that the accusod had claimed this land before the SettlementOfficor, even though the Headman subsequently tried to withdraw thatadmission. On the Headman’s own description of the land it is morethan likely that the claim made before the Settlement Officer must haverelated to tho two acres in question. According to the Headman himselfno order appears yet to have been made upon that claim. Hence, atthe least, the accused’s occupation is referable to a bona fide claim ofright..
Appeal allowed.
For these reasons I would set aside the conviction and acquit theaccused.