( 208 )
QUEEN v. TILAKARATNA.D. C. (Criminal), Galle, 12,620.
Duty of notary—Ordinance No. 2 of 1817, s. 26—Consecutive numberingof deeds as attested—Forwarding duplicates to Land Registry withlist of deeds.
It is the duty of a notary to number every deed consecutivelyaccording to date of attestation and to enter it in,the monthly listand duplicate of the deed should be sent with such list to theRegistrar of Lands as required by section 26 of Ordinance No. 2of 1877.
It is of the utmost importance for the welfare of the communitythat notaries should strictly comply with the duties imposed onthem by law.
There is a distinction between “ neglect ” and “ failure ” :“ failure ” may be due to inevitable accident, “ neglect ” is aculpable omission.
'T'HE facts of the case are set out in the following judgment of
the Chief Justice.
The District Judge found the accused guilty, and sentencedhim to a fine of Rs. 25 upon each of the three counts in theindictment.
Rudra, for accused, appellant.Chitty, C.C., for respondent.
15th August, 1898. Bonseb, C.J.—
In this case the appellant, who is a notary, has been convictedof having neglected his duty in three instances. The first wasthat he did not send in, before the 15th of June, 1897, to theRegistrar of Lands of the district, the duplicate of a deed whichwas executed on the 1st May, 1897; the second was thathe omitted that deed from the list of deeds required to be sent in tothat officer ; and the third was that he did not number that deedconsecutively, according to the order in which it was executed.The appellant did not attempt to give any explanation of the firsttwo charges, but he put in a written explanation of the thirdcharge, which the District Judge held did not exonerate him, andI agree with him. The conviction, however, should be amendedby substituting the word “ neglect ” for the word “ fail ” by lawto do. A man may fail to do something required by law owingto some inevitable accident, whereas neglect is a culpableomission.
There is no question that there was neglect in this case, and thejudgment^ affirmed.
( 209 )
Mr. Rudra applied to have the fine reduced to Bs. 25 on each 1898.charge.' I do not see my way to do this, for 1 consider it to be of August IS.the utmost importance, for the welfare of the community, that Bowses, C-T.notaries should strictly comply with the duties imposed uponthem by law.
I observe that the District Judge gave leave to appeal. Icannot understand why he did so.
QUEEN v. TILAKARATNA