083-NLR-NLR-V-48-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Appellant-and-CADER-Respondent.pdf
252
SOERTSZ S.P.J.—The Attorney-General v. Coder.
1947Present : Soertsz S.P.J.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellant, and CADER,Respondent.
252—M. C. Colombo, 31,543.
Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance, s. 5 (1)—Charge under—
Jurisdiction of Municipal Magistrate—Time limit for prosecution—
Municipal Councils Ordinance, ss. 52 (2), 269.
An offence under the Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinanceis triable by the Municipal Magistrate of Colombo.
The period of limitation mentioned in section 269 of the MunicipalCouncils Ordinance is restricted to an offence under that Ordinanceand is not applicable to an offence under the Quarantine and Preventionof Diseases Ordinance.
^^PPEAL from an order made by the Municipal Magistrate of Colombo.
T. S. Fernando, C.C., for the Attorney-General, appellant.
M. M. Abdul Coder, for the accused, respondent.
Cur. adv. milt.
March 19, 1947. Soertsz S.P.J.—
This is an appeal by the Attorney-General from an order made bythe Municipal Magistrate of Colombo refusing to try and decide acharge made against an accused under section 5 (1) of the Quarantineand Prevention of Diseases Ordinance (Chap. 173) on the ground thathe had no jurisdiction to try a charge under that Ordinance. It isclear from the order he made that he felt himself bound by the viewtaken by my Lord The Chief Justice in the case S.C. 550 MM.C. Colombo29,753, said to be reported in Vol. 32 C. L. W. page 71. In thatcase the learned Chief Justice not having been informed of a certainGovernment Notification held “ the jurisdiction of the Municipal Magis-trate was. qualified by section 52 of the .Municipal 'Councils Ordinance(Chap. 192) and the offences' which he is empowered to hear, try and-determine are offences committed within the Municipality in breachof any Municipal by-laws on under Chapter 193 or under any of theOrdinances specified in a tabular statement annexed to this section.The Quarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance does not appearin that tabular statement, nor has it been added by any subsequent
Marimuttu v. Wright.
23J
■order of the Governor made under sub-section 2 of that section Counselappearing for the appellant in that case, evidently, was not aware ofthe Government Notification dated February 12, 1915, appearing inGovernment Gazette No. 6,698. There was no appearance for the re-spondent in that case. The Notification is in these terms : “His Excellencythe Governor in Executive Council has in excercise of the powers vestedIn him by sub-section 2 of section 54 of the above Ordinance been pleasedto order that the jurisdiction of the Municipal Magistrate of Colombobe extended to offences under the Quarantine and Prevention of DiseasesOrdinance, 1897 ”. Section 54 cited in the Notification has been replacedby section 52 (2) of the Municipal Councils Ordinance in force today.The Notification by His Excellency the Governor has been kept alivein the new Legislative Enactments of section 3 of the Revised Editionof the Legislative Enactments (Amendment) Ordinance, No. 16 of 1939.Counsel for the respondent, however submitted that it would be futileto send this case back for trial because he contended that theprosecution of the alleged offence was barred by section 269of the Municipal Councils Ordinance because that section provided“ that no person shall be liable to a penalty or fine under thisOrdinance …. unless the complaint respecting such offenceshall have been made within 3 months next after the commencementof such offence”. He pointed out that the offence in this case wasalleged to have been committed between December 26, 1945, andJuly 3, 1946, and the complaint was on July 1, 1947. But the answerto this argument is that the offence in this case now before me is not anoffence under the Municipal Councils Ordinance, but one under theQuarantine and Prevention of Diseases Ordinance. I therefore remitthe case for trial to the Municipal Magistrate, Colombo.
Appeal allowed.