H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.—Safideen v. Sirisena
Present: H. H. G. Fernando, J.RAFIDEEN, Appellant, and SIRISENA (Inspector of Police),Respondent
S. C. 520—M. 0. Kandy, 9,835
Indictable offence—Consent of accused to be tried summarily—Assumption of summaryjurisdiction by Court—Legality—Criminal Procedure Code, s. 152 (.?).
Consent of the aocused is not a proper ground for the assumption oFjurisdiction under section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
XXPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Kandy.
M. M. Kumarakulasingharn, for the accused-appellant.
George Candappa, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Our. adv. wilt.
December 16, 1955. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
The Magistrate has tried this case under section 152 (3) of the CriminalProcedure Code stating as his grounds for so doing “ Facts as reportedare simple. No points of law. Speedy disposal and at accused’srequest ”. There is no requirement in section 152 (3) for the consent orthe request of the accused to a summary trial and it has been held in.
Kader Mohideen <b Co., Ltd. v. Nagoor Gang
8. G. No. 1,557[M. G. Kumnegala No. 7,894, 8. G. Minutes May 13,1954 that consent by itself is not a proper ground for the assumption ofjurisdiction under that section.
The fact that the Magistrate in this case has mentioned an irrelevantground makes it at least doubtful whether the other grounds he mentionswould have been considered by him sufficiently for the purposes ofassuming jurisdiction, and also makes it difficult for this Court on appealto decide whether the Magistrate’s decision to try the case was a properone. I need hardly mention that several judgments of this Court haveclearly laid it down that the decision to try a case under section 152 (3)should be made only after full consideration of the circumstances of thecase and that the reasons of the Magistrate must be stated for the benefitof this Court. The statement of reasons in the present case appearsto be mere formal or literal compliance with the proper procedure.
The appeal on the facts has also been argued before me and I amsatisfied that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. That beingso, my doubts upon the question whether the Magistrate properly assumedjurisdiction are not sufficient to justify the quashing of the proceedings.The conviction is therefore affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
RAFIDEEN, Appellant, and SIRISENA (Inspector of Police), Respondent