086-NLR-NLR-V-65-K.-PONNUDURAI-Petitioner-and-D.-S.-SUMANAWEERA-Sub-Inspector-of-Police-Res.pdf
Ponnudurai v. Sumanaweera
407
1963Present: Sri Skanda Bajah
K.PONNUDURAI, Petitioner, and D. S. SUMANAWEERA (Sub-Inspector of Police), Respondent
8. G. 341163—Application for Revision in M. C. Point Pedro, 12834
Evidence—Meaning of term “ certified copy ”.
A copy of a statement alleged to have been certified by a person who is notcompetent to read the language in which it was recorded is not a certified copy.
Conditional release of an offender—Procedure—Criminal Procedure Code, *. 32-5 (1 )•
An accused person against whom a conviction has been entered cannot hedealt with under section 325 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Application to revise an order of the Magistrate's Court., PointPedro.
F. 8ethukaval/yr, with. 8. G. Wijeselcera, for Petitioner.
N- B. D. 8. IVijesefzera, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General
408
SRI SELANDA RAJAH, J.— Poanudmrai v. Svmtmawwra
October 24,1963. Sri Skajsda Rajah, J.
This application for revision is considered along with Appeals 567and 568. The application for revision is by the 3rd accused, becausehe had no right of appeal, the sentence imposed on him being a non-appealable one. The appeals and the application have been pressedboth on the facts and on the law. In view of the order I propose tomake I do not wish to say anything on the facts.
It would appear that the statement of the injured man, who is a Tamil,had been recorded in the police imformation book in Sinhala, and itwas certified by a Tamil sergeant who could not read Sinhala. Underthose circumstances, by no stretch of imagination could such a copybe termed a certified copy. A copy of a statement alleged to have beencertified by a person who is not competent to read the langua ge in whichit was recorded is not a certified copy. It is quite clear that the accusedwas prejudiced in that this copy handed to the accused could not beunderstood either by the accused or by bis proctor, or even by thesergeant who purported to certify it. Such a course amounts to adenial of justice.
It is a pity that in predominantly Tamil speaking areas statementsmade in Tamil should be recorded in the police information book inSinhala. One would expect a sufficient number of persons conversantwith the language of the area to be stationed at such police stationsso that the interests of justice would not suffer by statements beingrecorded in a language other than the one in which statements are made.I do hope that this matter will be brought to the notice of the powersthat be, and that this unsatisfactory state will be soon remedied.
I would, therefore, allow the application for revision and also theappeals, and set aside the conviction and send the case back to theMagistrate’s Court of Point Pedro for a fresh trial before another Magis-trate.
I, further, find that though the Magistrate purported to convict oneof the accused on two counts, he purported to discharge that accusedon the 2nd count. Having convicted, i.e., having found him guilty,it was not open to the Magistrate to deal with the accused under section325 (1) of tbe Crirninal Procedure Code. He should bave passed sentenceon that count also. He could not have discharged him with a warningon that count. I have repeatedly pointed this out and I do hope thatMagistrates will be careful about making use of section 325 (1) of theCriminal Procedure Code.
Application allowed.