< 325 )
Present: Porter J.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. WTJESIN0HE550—P. C. Hambantota 5,301.
Game Protection Ordinance, No. 1 of 1909—Killing game treepasnng oncultivated land in- night—Information to headmen.
Section 13 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1909 must be read along withsection 10; and consequently when animals (specified, in section 10)trespassing upon cultivated lands are killed, information should hegiven forthwith to the nearest headman, even when they are .killedin the night.
fjp HE facts appear from the-judgment.
Soertsz, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
October 20, 1922. Porter J.—
In this case there is no dispute as to the facts, which are asfollows: —
The accused shot and killed a sambur which was trespassing onhis cultivated fields at night time. He was convicted of a breachof section 10. of Ordinance No. 1 of 1909. Section 10 reads asfollows:“ It shall he lawful for any person to kill, Bhoot at,
destroy, pursue, capture, or attempt to capture, without a license,any tusker, elephant, or buffalo while trespassing in or upon anycultivated land, or any game when so trespassing whether duringthe close season or at any other time. Provided that informationof- the capture or destruction of such animal shall be forthwithgiven to the nearest headman or' police officer, and provided thatin the case of a tusker being so captured or destroyed, the tuskerand its tusks shall be held to be the property of the Crown.**
It has been argued that as the killing in this case took place at1 night that section 13 applies, and that section 13 contains no provisionpenalizing the omission to give information when the destruction
( 326 )
InapecJorof Police **.Wijeaingbe
takes place at night. Section 13 runs thus: “ It shall not be lawfulfor any person to shoot at any game, unless trespassing in or uponany cultivated land, between sunset and sunrise, or at any timeto lay or spread any trap, snare, net, or pitfall, except in or uponany cultivated land, for the purpose of capturing or destroying anygame or jungle fowl; and any person who shall shoot or attemptto shoot any game, or lay or spread or attempt to lay or spread anytrap, snare, net, or pitfall, for the purpose of capturing or destroyingany game or jungle fowl in contravention of this section, shall beguilty of an offence, and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceedingone hundred rupees, or to simple or rigorous imprisonment for aperiod not exceeding three months, or to both.”
I think that section 13 merely sets out when it is not unlawfulto shoot at night. That is to say, that, except in certain circum-stances, it is unlawful to shoot at any game at night.
Section 13 must be read along with section 10.
It is difficult to see why the destruction need not be reportedbecause it occurred at night. The only other question is one offact, i.e., did the accused give information forthwith? The evidenceof one Punchi Baba is to the effect that on the instructions of theaccused he went to the house of the police officer of Hokgala toreport the shooting of this sambur. On arriving there on themorning of the 12th he found that the police officer had gone t-oHambantota. So he left the message with the police officer's wife.I think that the accused has complied with the law requiring himto give information forthwith, and for this reason would allow thisappeal and set aside the conviction.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. WIJESINGHE