GUNASEKARA J.—Edwin o. Sinnanhamy
1951Present: Gunasekara J.EDWIN et al. Appellants, and SINNANHAMY, Respondent
C. 273-274—M. C. Galle, 18,956
Compounding of offence—Order of acquittal—Implementation of undertakings. .
When an offence is compounded on certain undertakings being given, theaccused is entitled to an order of acquittal forthwith.
PPEAL from an order of the Magistrate’s Court, Galle.
…. ^ ^
K.G. de Silva, .for the "accused appellants.
No appearan.ee .for the 'complainant respondent.
June 8, 1951. Gunasekara J.—
The two accused appellants were charged with committing criminaltrespass, punishable under Section 433 of the Penal Code, and criminalintimidation punishable under Section 486 of the Penal Code. Theproceedings had been initiated on a complaint made under Section 148(1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused pleaded not guiltyto the charges, and after some evidence had been taken at the trial, on the16th October, 1950, the learned Magistrate noted that the case was“ settled ” on certain terms which are set out in the record. Thereaftervarious other steps were taken in the case, steps apparently regarded asnecessary to be taken in court to ascertain whether certain undertakingsthat had been given were implemented. At one stage the 1st accusedAppellant admitted that he reaped the crop of the field in respect of whichthe offence of criminal trespass was alleged and was held by the Magistrateto have committed a breach of the order made by the court on 16thOctober, 1950. The 2nd accused thereupon agreed to deposit to thecredit of this case a sum of R§. 125 as representing the value of the crop,and after several further adjournments a sum of Rs. 125 was depositedby the appellants.
I presume that when the Magistrate recorded on the 16th October, 1950,that the case was settled, what he intended to convey was either that theoffences were compounded with his approval, or that the complainantwithdrew the charges with his approval. In either event the accusedwere entitled to an order of acquittal on that day. I am aware of noprovision of the Criminal Procedure Code under which the proceedingstaken thereafter were warranted.
1 direct that the sum of Rs. 125 deposited by the appellants shouldbe returned. to them, and that the order of acquittal that ought to havebeen entered on the 16th October, 1950, be now entered.
EDWIN et al. Appellants and SINNANHAMY, Respondent