018-NLR-NLR-V-08-KING-v.SENGINA.pdf
( 102 )
1905.
February 7.
KING v. SENGINA.
D. C., Negombo, 2,309.
Jurisdiction—Itinerating Magistrate—Offence committed in one judicial district,but charge entertained in another district—Criminal Procedure Code,ss. 146 and 423.
The mere fact that an Itinerating Police Magistrate having jurisdic-tion over parts of two judicial districts entertained, while holding Courtin one district, a complaint of an offence committed in another districtover which he has jurisdiction, will not render his order that the accusedshould be committed for trial liable to be set aside, unless the irregularityhas occasioned a failure of justice, as provided in sections 146 and 423 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code.
I
N this case of robbery, which was inquired into and committedby Mr. P. de Saram, the Itinerating Police Magistrate,
b Western Province, it was urged before the District Judge ofNegombo, Vho was trying it, that the proceedings and order ofcommittal for trial were void, because Mr. P. de Saram, havingconcurrent jurisdiction over parts of the judicial district ofColombo, Negombo, and Avisawella, had entertained at Welisara,in the Colombo District, the charge of robbery alleged to have
( 108 )
been committed at Uggalboda in the Negombo District, and hadcompleted all the proceedings at Welisara.
It was the practice of Mr. P. de.Saram to hold Court at Welisarafor tiie disposal of the Colombo District cases, at Henaratgoda forthe disposal of the Negombo District cases, and at Pasyala for thedisposal of the Avisawella District cases.
The District Judge of Negombo (Mr. F. Bartlett) found asfollows: —
“ It is candidly admitted that there is no question of prejudiceto parties. The matter is rather a contest between the NegomboBar and the gentlemen who practise in the Itinerating Court, theformer considering Mr. De Saram’s concurrent jurisdiction as aninjury to them and an infringement of their rights.
“ I can only be guided by what I believe the law. I believeMr. De Saram’s practice of hearing cases at Welisara has continuedfor a considerable time unchallenged, and I think the samepractice holds in Jaffna, where the Police Magistrate, Jaffna, whohas concurrent jurisdiction over Kayts, hears Kayts cases at Jaffnain (he absence of the Kayts Police Magistrate at Delft.
“ If the procedure in the Police Court has been irregular, I thinkthat section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code cures any defect.
t
“ I convict accused under section 380 of the Criminal ProcedureCode. I sentence each to one day’s simple imprisonment and topay a fine of Bs. 60, in default to three months’ rigorous imprison-ment. ”
The accused appealed. The case was argued on 7th February1905.
W. Jayawardene, for appellant, argued on the merits, andalso contended that it was irregular on the part of the ItineratingMagistrate to have investigated the case at Welisara in theColombo District instead of at Henaratgoda in the NegomboDistrict.
Loos, C.C., appeared for the respondent. t
7th- February, 1905. Layard, C.J.—
The order of committal, in the circumstances found, is not lihbleto be set aside under section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code,as. there is no proof that the irregularity has occasioned a failureof, justice.
[On the merits, his Lordship affirmed the conviction, but reducedsentence of Bs. 60 to Bs. 10.]
ltf».
February 7.