KrishnapiUai v. Inspector of Police, Crimes
Present: Sinnetamby, J.
KRISHNAPILLAI, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIMES,
8. C. 372—M. C. Jaffna, 16174
Criminal procedure—Accused produced in custody—Duty of Magistrate to recordevidence before framing charge—Summons—Mode of service.
Whore an accused person appears otherwise than on summons, the Magistrateshould record evidence before charging the accused. The Magistrate shouldnot adopt the doubtful expedient of there and then writing out a summons andserving it on the accused.
-£ APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Jaffna.
Colvin R. de SUva, with M. D. Jesuratnam, for accused-appellant.S. Sivarasa, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
SINNETAMBY, J.—ICriahnapitl ai v. Inspector of Police, Crimea
February 24, 1960. SmcraiTAMBY, J.—
In this case the accused was produced on the 15th February 1959by the Inspector of Police, Jaffna and bailed out by Court to appearon the 17th February. He’ appeared on the 17th February and onthat day the plaint was filed. We then see an entry in the journal tothe effect that summons was served. No summons was issued earlierand one can only assume that when the plaint was filed, the summonswas written out and immediately served upon the.accused. That thiswas so would appear from the summons which forms part of the recordand which is dated 17th February, 1959. I do not think the Magistratecan overcome the effect of the judgment of this Court reported in 69
N.L. B. 217 by adopting the doubtful expedient of there and thenwriting out a summons and serving it on the accused. The accused didappear otherwise than on summons and service on him subsequentlywould not cure the defect. The Magistrate should have recordedevidence before charging the accused and this he has failed to do.
The proceedings are therefore irregular and illegal. They areaccordingly set aside and the case sent back for retrial in due course,according to law.
Case sent back for retrial.
KRISNAPILLAI, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE , CRIMES , Respondent