( 138 )
HASSIM t>. CAROLIS.
P. <?., Ratnapura, 1,694.
Driving cart after dark without lamps—Moonlight night—Ordinance No. 16 of1866, s. 58, subs. 9.
It is an offence under sab-section 9 of section 63 of Ordinance No. 10of 1865 to drive or lead a conveyance or cart after dark and beforedaylight withoat lighted lanterns, although the night is a moonlightnight.
HE accused in this case was charged at Idle instance of the* police under sub-section 9 of section 53 of Ordinance No. 10
of 1865 with having on the 17th January, 1905, driven his hackeryon the public road after dark and before daylight withoutlighted lanterns. He was acquitted on the ground that the nightin question was a moonlight night.
Against this acquittal the Attorney-General appealed.
The case came up for argument before Grenier, A.J., on the10th February, 1905.
Rdman&than, S.-G., for appellant.
There was no appearance for respondent.'
18th February, 1905. Gbenieb, J.—
This is an appeal by the Attorney-General from a decision ofthe Police Magistrate of Batnapura, in which he holds that nooffence was committed by the accused because it was on a moon-light night that he drove his hackery on the public road withoutlights. The proceedings appear to have been remarkably brief;no evidence was recorded.
The acquittal is clearly bad, because I cannot find that theOrdinance draws any distinction whatever between dark nightsand moonlight nights. Sub-section 9 of section 53 of OrdinanceNo. 16 of 1865, under which the charge was laid, makes it an offenceif ** any person drives or leads any conveyance or cart after darkand before daylight without lighted lanterns, and there is noexception made in favour of a moonlight night.
The acquittal must be set aside and the case sent back for trialon the merits.
HASSIM v. CAROLIS