WIJEYEWARDENE J.—Ekanayake' v. Deen.
1940Present: Wijeyewardene J.
EKANAYAKE v. DEEN.
286—M. C. Teldeniya^ 11,650.
Motor omnibus—Bus. stopped by Police Constable—Right of Constable togive evidence of overloading—Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938,s. Ill (2) and (6).
A Police Constable who has stopped an omnibus for the purpose ofascertaining whether it has been duly licensed may state in evidencethe fact that the omnibus was carrying at the time more than theauthorised number of passengers.
Semble, a Constable who has acted in breach of section 111 (6) of theMotor Car Ordinance in stopping a bus to ascertain whether it has beenoverloaded may give evidence of such overloading.
^y^PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Teldeniya.
17. P. Weerasinghe, for appellant.
E. Chitty, C.C., for respondent.
September 18, 1940. Wijeyewardene J.—
The accused-appellant, who was the conductor of the motor omnibusNo. X. 5239, was charged with conveying five passengers in excess of theminimum number specified in the licence for that omnibus.
A Police Constable who gave evidence for the prosecution stated thathe and another Police Constable stopped the omnibus in question in orderto ascertain whether the vehicle was duly licensed and that he then• found that the number of passengers exceeded the maximum number-
PunchimahatTnaya v. The Attorney-General.
specified in the licence. No evidence was led for the defence and theMagistrate convicted the accused under sections m. (2) and 158 of theMotor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, and sentenced him to pay a fineof Rs. 30.
It was argued in appeal that the conviction was wrong in view of sectionIII. (6) of the Ordinance which reads—
“No omnibus shall be stopped by any police officer for the purposeof ascertaining whether any offence under this section has been com-mitted in respect of that omnibus, unless that officer is of a rank notbelow that of a sergeant in charge of a station. ”
It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to state that in fact thevehicle in question was stopped by the Constable to find out whether itwas duly licensed and that therefore his action is not in violation of theprovisions of section HI. (6). I may add that I do not see any reason whya Police Constable who has acted in breach of section HI. (6) in stopping,an omnibus to ascertain whether it has been overloaded should not giveevidence of such overloading.
Disregard of the provisions of section III. (6) by a Police Constable mayperhaps amount to an offence under section 150 of the Ordinance or someother provision of the law but cannot possibly affect the competency ofthe officer in question as a witness in a case under section III. of the ,
The appeal is dismissed.
EKANAYAKE v. DEEN