ROSE 3.—Brakamany v. Dangamwoa Koraie.
1946Present-" Rose J.BRAHAMANY, Appellant, and DANGAMU WA K.ORALE,Respondent.
258—M. C. Ratnapura, 45,977.
Order requisitioning paddy—No directions given to accused■—No evidence ofpossession—Validity of conviction in such circumstances—Defence(Miscellaneous) Regulations 37, 32.
A person cannot be convicted of contravening an order of requisitioningmade under Regulation 37 of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulationsunless (1) directions had been given to him such as are contemplatedunder that Regulation and (2) there is evidence that on the date of therequisition order or on the date of any direction given in connectionwith the requisition order the property to be requisitioned was in faotin the possession of the accused person.
PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Oourt,Ratnapura.
C. Renganathan (with him T. B. Dissanayake), for the accused,appellant.
T. K. Curtis, C.C., for the oomplainant, respondent.
April 1, 1946. Ross J.—
This is an unfortunate little matter in which the appellant was con-victed of having failed to comply with an order of requisitioning underRegulation 37 of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations. The subjectmatter of the order was some eight bushels of paddy, and the appellanttakes two points. He says, first, that by the terms of the requisitioningorder itself, which was produced—exhibit P 1—before the Magistrate, nodirection as contemplated under Regulation 37 was given to him (theappellant) at all in connection with the order. As, therefore, it is soughtto convict him by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 52, which
CANNON J.—Khan v. jrernainto (f. a.).
affects any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any order orrole or direction imposed under the Defence Regulation, his appeal mustsucceed on the simple ground that, no direction having been given to him,he cannot be convicted of contravening it.
Apart from that, it seems to me, on the facts of this case, that theappellant would be entitled to succeed also on the second ground, whiohisthat stated in Bandaranayakev. Silva1, namely, that some evidence shouldbe adduced by the prosecution to show that on the date of the requisitionorder, or any rate on the date of any direction given in connection withthe requisition order under Regulation 37 of the Defence (Miscellaneous)Regulation, there must be some evidence that the property to be requisi-tioned was in fact in the possession of the accused person. In this caseit appears from the record that there was no such evidence before theMagistrate. It seems to me, therefore, that this too is a good ground ofappeal.
The appeal must be allowed and the convictions quashed.
BRAHAMAY , Appellant , and DANGAMUWA KORALE, Respondent