002-NLR-NLR-V-27-WILSON-v.-APPUHAMY.pdf
( 6 )
t924.
[In Revision.]
Present: Jayewardene A.J.
WILSON v. APPUHAMY.
P. (7. Nuwara Eliya, 6,442.
Habitual Criminals Ordinance—Police supervision—Failing to report—Further conviction—Suspension of order—Conviction for crime—Ordinance No. 32 of 1914, ss. 12, 13, and 14.
Where an accused person who has been subjected to a term ofpolice supervision under the Habitual Criminals Ordinance isconvicted under section 14 of the Ordinance for failing to reporthimself, the order for police supervision is suspended while he isundergoing the latter sentence. An order for police supervisioncan only be made when a person has been convicted of a crime asdefined in the Ordinance.
C
'l ASE referred to the Supreme Court by the Police Magistrate of
^ Nuwara Eliya. The accused was convicted on May 25,1922,and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eight months, and there-after to a term of police supervision for a period of three years underthe Habitual Criminals Ordinance. He was then charged in thepresent case under section 13 of the Ordinance for failing to reporthimself, and on conviction the Magistrate passed an order subjectinghim to police supervision for a period of eighteen months, in additionto imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The learned PoliceMagistrate was doubtful whether the last order for the police super-vision was right.
Iltangakoon, C.C., for the Crown.
( 7 )
September 8,1924. Jayewabdene A.J.—
This case has been* sent up for revision by the Police Magistrateof Nuwara Eliya. The faots are fully set out in the Magis-trate’s letter to the Registrar. The acoused was convicted onMay 25, 1922, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eightmonths, and thereafter under section 12 of Ordinance No. 32 of 1914to undergo police supervision for a period of three years. Underseotion 13 of this Ordinance the acoused failed to report himseif asdireoted, and was, therefore, oharged in the present case undersection 14 for neglecting to do so. For this failure to report himselfthe learned Magistrate imprisoned the acoused till the rising ofthe Court, and passed an order subjeoting him to police supervisionfor a term of eighteen months. The Magistrate is doubtful whetherthe order passed by him directing the aooused to report himself tothe police is right. As the Magistrate rightly points out, an orderfor polioe supervision can only be made when a person has beenconvicted of a “ orime ” as defined in that Ordinance.
In my opinion a conviction under section 14 does not in any wayaffect the order for police supervision already passed.
If an aooused is convicted for failure to report himself and issentenced to a term of imprisonment, the order for polioe supervisionwould be merely suspended while he is serving his sentence. Itwould revive as soon as he is set free. So, in the present case, theaccused’s conviction would not affeot his liability to report himselfto the police as originally directed, but it would continue for theperiod fixed when he was oonvioted.
The order of the Magistrate subjeoting the aooused to policesupervision for eighteen months is irregular and must be set aside.
The Magistrate should summon the aooused before him and informhim that the period of police supervision imposed on him whenhe was convicted of a “ crime ” will continue till the expirationof three years commencing from the date of his' discharge fromjail after serving the term of imprisonment imposed on him when hewas convioted on May 25, 1922.
Set aside.
♦
1924.
Wilson v,Apptthamy