090-NLR-NLR-V-06-SAMARANAYAKA-v.-ELORIS.pdf
( 869 )
SAM ARAN A TAKA v. ELORIS.
P.G., Colombo, No. A.
Jwisdiction—Criminal trespass, assault, criminal intimidation, and mischief—Order of Police Magistrate referring complainant to the GansabhawaCourt.
A person entering the honse of another and rushing at him in athreatening manner and throwing stones at his house and causingdamages to the tiles and glass articles to the extent of about Es. 20 isprimi fade liable for criminal trespass, assault, criminal intimidation, andmischief.
It is evasion of jurisdiction on the part of a Police Magistrate to refersuch a case to the Gansabhawa Court.
I
N this case four persons were, charged with house trespass,criminal intimidation, and mischief, under sections 428, 434,
and 409 of the Penal Code.
The Police Magistrate, Mr. R. B. Hellings, heard the com-plainant, who gave evidence as follows: —
“ I live on the Model Farm on this side of the railway. I charge(1) Eloris, (2) Sinno Appu, (3) Podi Sinno, (4) Charles. On the21st noon they came to my bungalow and aBked about two cowswhich I had caught for trespass earlier that day and handed overto the police. I told accused so. Accused had heard from thesergeant that they had to pay Rs. 2.50 per head. -They asked meto release the cows without payment. I told them to settle with thesergeant. They rushed at me to assault me. I ran into a room andlocked my door. I heard glass falling in the hall and stonesfalling on the roof and in the house. Two men came and told meaccused had gone. I found a lamp broken, four tumblers, andthree or four bottles broken, value about Rs. 15; 200 or 300 tileswere broken, at about Rs. 2.50 per 100 ”.
Thereupon the Police Magistrate made order as follows: —
“ Gansabhawa jurisdiction. Complainant referred to thatCourt
The Attorney-General appealed.
Bdmanathan, S.-G., for appellant,—
The Magistrate has wrongly evaded jurisdiction. If he believesthe complainant, the offences of assault, criminal intimidation,criminal trespass, and mischief have been proved and are deserv-ing of sentences much higher than a Village Tribunal can give.The Magistrate should be directed to hear and decide the case.
1903.
January 19.
( 370 )
1903.
January 16.
16th Januaiy, 1903. Wendt, J.—
The Attorney-General appeals in this caw against ten order ofthe Police Magistrate holding that the matter complained of fellwithin the exclusive jurisdiction of the Gansabhawa, and thequestion is whether he was right in so holding. Whatever mighthave been the result upon a full inquiry, it seems to me that theMagistrate was wrong upon the materials as they now stand.
The complainant had impounded some of the accused’s cattleand, as he lawfully might, handed them over to the police. Theaccused came to the complainant’s house, having been told by thesergeant that Bs. 2.60 was payable in respect of each of theanimals. The complainant refused to release the cattle withoutany payment. Upon his refusal the .accused rushed at him in athreatening manner, and he ran into a room and locked himselfin. The accused then destroyed a lamp and some tumblers andbottles which were in the house, valued at Bs. 15, and proceededto throw stones on the roof, whereby 200 or 300 tiles, were broken,worth Bs. 2.50 a hundred. This appears to my mind a muchmore serious offence than the Legislature intended to includeunder the head “ Criminal ” in section 28 of Ordinance No. 24 of1889.
It would appear primd facie that the offences of assault,- criminalintimidation, criminal trespass, and mischief were possiblyinvolved in the acts of the accused—offences usually punishedwith sentences exceeding the Bs. 20 fine or two weeks’ imprison-ment which limit the punitive powers of. Village Tribunals.
I set aside the order appealed against and send the case back tobe dealt with according to law.