024-NLR-NLR-V-62-S.-SIVASUBRAMANIAM-Appellant-and-M.-P.-W.-MUNASINGHE-S.-I.-Police-Responde.pdf
T. S. FERNANDO, T.—Sivasubramaniam v. Munasinghe
93
Present :T. S. Fernando, J.
S. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, Appellant, and M. P- W. MUNASINGHE
(S. X. Police), Respondent
246, toith Application in Revision No. 32M. C. Mannar 19451
Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957—Section 84 (2)—“ Defaces ”—Motor TrafficAct, No. 14 of 1951, s. 24 (2).
By section 84 (2) of the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957—
“ Any person who wilfully damages or defaces any omnibus of the CeylonTransport Board or any part of its equipment shall be guilty of an offence. ”
Held, that pasting a piece of paper on the identification plate of an omnibusso as to cover a part of the face of the plate—although the letter and figuresforming the distinctive number are not obscured tlioreby—is an act of deface-ment within the meaning of the enactment.
A
XxPPEAL, with application in revision, from a judgment of the Magis-trate’s Court, Mannar.
Colvin R. de Silva, with S. Sharvanarula, for the accused-appellant.
J.A. D. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 1, 1960. T. S. Fernando, J.—
The accused appeals from a conviction on a charge that alleged thathe did wilfully deface the identification plate of an omnibus of the CeylonTransport Board, an offence punishable under section 84 (2) of theMotor Transport Act, No. 4S of 1957, He was fined Rs. 5 and orderedto undergo a week’s simple imprisonment if the fine is not paid. Noappeal is competent in this case except upon a question of law certifiedas required by section 340 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thequestion of law that has been certified was not pressed, and the appealhas to be dismissed.
There is, however, an application in revision canvassing the correctnessof the order of conviction and, in view of the opinion I have formed ofthe merits of the arguments for the applicant, it is necessary to set downthe relevant facts.
94
T. S. FERNANDO, J.—SivasTibramaniam v. Munasinghe
Section 84 (2) of the Motor Trasport Act, No. 48 of 1957, enacts—toreproduce here only the relevant words—that any person who wilfullydamages or defaces any omnibus of the Ceylon Transport Board orany part of its equipment shall be guilty of an offence. The’ accusedwas proved to have pasted with the aid of gum a piece of paper with theTamil character urff drawn on it on the lower part of the front bufferof an omnibus of the Transport Board which had immediately prior to theaccused’s act come to a halt at the bus stand at Mannar. The identi-fication plate bearing the distinctive number of this omnibus which was22 <§ 1171 being fixed just below the front buffer, the piece of paperpasted on the buffer by the accused projected beyond the width of thebuffer and was pasted on to the upper part of the identification plate aswell. It is not disputed that no part of the distinctive number (includingthe Sinhalese character <§) was covered by the piece of paper. Thelearned Magistrate has after addressing his mind to the evidence reachedthe finding of fact that the piece of paper was pasted on the upper partof the identification plate and on the lower part of the ' buffer. Theconsideration by this Court of the present application in revision madeby the accused can take place only on the basis of the finding of fact ofthe trial court.
It is not contended that the act of the accused was not a wilful one.The accused himself stated that he pasted—meaning deliberately pasted—the piece of paper in question on the bus in order to vindicate a principlehe cherished that Tamil and Sinhalese are the two national languages ofCeylon and that both languages should be used for all purposes in Ceylon.The contention on which learned counsel for the accused relies in orderto succeed in this application in revision is that the accused’s act did notamount to a defacing of the identification plate. The word “ defaces ”appearing in section 84 is not used therein as a term of art or as onethat bears a special or legal meaning and must receive its ordinarymeaning. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.),“ deface ” means to mar the face or appearance of ; to spoil the form orbeauty of; to disfigure ; to destroy, lay waste ; to efface.
Where, as has been found here, a piece of paper has been pasted on theidem tifi cation plate covering a part of its face—although the letter andfigures forming the distinctive number were not obscured thereby—it isnot difficult, in my opinion, to conclude that the appearance of the identi-fication plate has been marred or that the plate has been disfigured.This appears to be all the more so when considered against the back-ground of the legal requirement—vide section 24 (2) of the Motor TrafficAct, No. 14 of 1951—that no part of any identification plate shall beobscured in any manner.
The application in revision is also dismissed.
Appeal and Application dismissed.