094-NLR-NLR-V-17-KIRISNARATNA-v.-SIYAN-APPU-et-al.pdf
( 276 )
1914.
Present: Pereira J.
KRISNARATNA r. SIYAN APPU et aL395—P. G. Galle, 6,252.
Unlawful gaming—Exclusive jurisdiction of Police Court—Arrest bypolice officer—Escape from custody—Jurisdiction of Police Courtto offence, under s. 219, Penal Code.
The Gaming Ordinance, 1889, gives police officers the power" to arrest and to take before the Police Court " any persons foundcommitting the offence of unlawful gaming.
Held, that a police officer has the power to' arrest a person foundcommitting unlawful gaming, although the offence is being com-mitted at a place within the jurisdiction of a Gansabhawa and the' Police Court has therefore no jurisdiction to try the offender.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Police Courts7 have juris-diction to try the offence of escape from legal custody only whenthe detention of the person who has 50 escaped was in respect ofan offence cognizable by a Police Court.
Held, that a Police Court may try such offence when the deten-tion of the person who has escaped was in respect of an offencecognizable by an inferior Court.
T
HE facts appear from the judgment. This was an appeal bythe Attorney-General from an acquittal.
van Langenberg, K.C.t S.-G., for the appellant.—The accused.were arrested- by the police officer in the act of unlawful gaming.Section 6 of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889 authorizes police officersto arrest and;, .takeJbefbre the Police Court having jurisdiction any
( 277 )
person found committing the* offence of unlawful gaming. The faotthat the persons arrested were subject to the exclusive jurisdictionof the Gansabhawa does not take away from the police officer thepower to arrest. The accused were in the lawful custody of thepolice officer when they escaped.
The Police Court has jurisdiction to try the offence of escape.The object of the schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code wasmerely to provide that a Police Court should not tiy the offence ofescape when the offence for which the accused was arrested wasbeyond the jurisdiction of the Police Court. The jurisdiction ofthe Police Court to try this case is not ousted By the faot that aGansabhawa has been given jurisdiction in this area in cases ofunlawful gaming.
J. 8. Jayewardene, for the accused, respondents.^-The provisionsof the Gaining Ordinance of 1889 have no application in places whichhave been brought within the operation of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance, No. 24 of 1889, and in which the inhabitants have, underthe provisions of section 6 (12) of Ordinance No. 24 of 1889, maderules for the prevention of gambling and cockfighting. In suchcases the Village Committees have exclusive jurisdiction (Jansz y.Perera 1). In thiB case the Police Court had no jurisdiction. Therewas no Police Court before which the person arrested could havebeen taken. The police officer did not have any power to arrestthe accused under section 6 of the Gaining Ordinance. The arrestwas illegal, and the escape was not an offence.
The schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code gives the PoliceCourt jurisdiction to try offences under section 219 of the PenalCode, when the detention of the person who had so escaped was inrespect of an offence triable by a Police Court. The Police Courthad no jurisdiction to try the accused for unlawful gaming. ThePolice Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to try this case.
Cut. adv. vult.
May 25, 1914. Pereiba J.—*
This is an appeal from an acquittal. The accused were chargedwith escape from the custody of the Sub-Inspector of Police ofDodanduwa, in which they were lawfully detained for an offence,and with having thu6 committed an offence punishable under section219 of the Penal Code. The accused were found in the act ofcommitting the offence of unlawful gaming and arrested by theSub-Inspector. This I assume only for the purposes of the presentargument. The first question is, whether the accused were in thelawful custody of the Police Inspector. Section 6 of the GamingOrdinance, 1889, gives police officers the power to arrest and totake before the Police Court having jurisdiction any person found
1814.
KrisnanUnav• SiyanAppu
( 278 )
1M4.
EanoHAJ.
KWmMmv. 8iyanAppu
• I
committing the offence of unlawful gaming. In the present instancethe persons arrested were not subject to the jurisdiction of the PoliceCourt, but were subject to the jurisdiction of the Gansabhawa, andit is argued that because the persons arrested were not liable to betaken before the Police Court they could not be arrested at all.
I do not think that the fact that a police officer making an arrestin the circumstances mentioned above is not able to take the personarrested before a Police Court in any way affects the power con-ferred on him to make the arrest, provided there is a Court beforewhich the accused might promptly be taken. The object of theprovision to take the person arrested before the Police Court is nomore than to prevent his undue detention, after arrest, in thecustody of the person arresting. So long as there was the Gudsabhawa before which the arrested persons in the present instanc*could legitimately have beenvtaken, I think that the arrest was quit*justified under section 6 of the Ordinance.>
The next question is whether, when the Police Court had n«jurisdiction to try the accused for the offence for which they hadbeen arrested, it had jurisdiction to try them for the offence ofescape from legal custody. The schedule to the Criminal ProcedureCode gives the Police Court jurisdiction to try the offence of escapefrom legal custody only when the detention of the person who hadso escaped was in respect of an offence cognizable by a Police Court.The object of this provision clearly is to deprivfe the Police Court ofjurisdiction when the detention was in respect of an offence withinthe jurisdiction of only a higher Court; but the greater includes theless, and if the Police Court had jurisdiction when the detentionwas in respect of an offence cognizable by itself a fortiori, would it.have jurisdiction when 6uch offence was cognizable by a Court oflesser jurisdiction. Otherwise there would be the anoqaaly of thePolice Court having jurisdiction to try one offence, while an offenceof manifestly less magnitude would have to be tried by a higherCourt.
I set aside the order appealed from, and remit the case to thePolice Court to be proceeded with in due course.
Set aside.