HEARNE J.—Somapnla v. Rajapakse.
1939Present: Hearae J.
SOMAPALA et al. v. RAJAPAKSE.
843-5—M. C. Hatton, 9,973.
Unlawful gaming—Presumption raised by search warrant—No evidence as, toinformation on which warrant was issued—Gaming Ordinance (Cap. 38).
Where a conviction 1 or unlawful gaming rested upon the presumptionraised by the issue of a search warrant and no evidence was led at thetrial as to the information on which the warrant was issued,—
Held, that the conviction was bad.
The Sub-lnspettor of Police, Panadure v. Charles et al. 12 £. W. R. 98)followed.
^ PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Hatton.
S. P. Wijewickreme, for accused, appellants.
No appearance for complainant, respondent.
December 12, 1939. Hearne J.—
The appellant was convicted of unlawful gaming under section 2 ofCap. 38, Vol. 1 (Legislative Enactments) . He was not convicted on thestrength of the evidence adduced. Indeed an analysis of that evidence,in. particular the divergence between the testimony of prosecution wit-nesses as to where the gaming took place, might easily have led theMagistrate to conclude that the offence charged had not been proved. Hewas convicted because “ the raid was carried out on a search warrant,the presumptions created by the Gaming Ordinance arose ”, and theappellant *' had not discharged the burden cast upon him
* 24 Betc. 49:;.
312HEARNE J.—Somapala v. Rajapakse.
It was held in the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panadure v. Charles et al. ‘that where the conviction of an accused rested upon the presumptionraised by the issue of a warrant and the warrant was not produced at thetrial and no evidence was led as to the information on which the warrantwas issued, the conviction was bad.
In this case no evidence was led that the warrant had been issued ontestimony which there was reason to believe, the accused could notchallenge such testimony, and I therefore allow the appeal.
In exercise of the revisional powers of this Court I also quash theconvictions of the two applicants in the proceedings numbered 526.
Conviction quashed. 1
1 2 C. P. Tt. 9S.
SOMAPALA et al. v. RAJAPAKSE