K. P. Karunawathie v. K. P. Kusumaseeli and Another
K. P. KUSUMASEELI AND ANOTHER
COURT OF APPEAL.
S. ANANDA COMARASWAMY J.
C. A. APPLICATION No. 945/84-M. C. MT. LAVINIA No. 90721.
FEBRUARY 16, 1990.
Refusal to postpone trial after several dates of trial-Subsequent order ol acquittal andcostsagainst complainant-Permission to appeal to Court of Appeal refused by the Attorney-General-Revision ol Magistrate's orders sought-lnsufliciency of material to revise Magis-trate's Orders-Non compliance with Rules of Supreme Court-Rule 46.
After several dates of trail the Magistrate had refused a postponement of the trail and indischarging the accused had also ordered costs against the complainant. The complain-ant-petitioner sought the Attorney-General's permission to appeal against the Magistrate'sorders to the Court of Appeal. The Attorney-General refused permission. Thereafter thecomplainant petitioner sought to revise the Magistrate's orders and in doing so annexedonly the order of the Magistrate to her application.
Where several dates of trial had passed there was no reason to interfere with the orderof the Magistrate refusing to grant a postponement of the trial.
The impugned order being an appealable order for which the Attorney-General'spermission was required and in circumstances where the Attorney-General refuses suchpermission and an aggrieved party seeks to revise the order of the Magistrate, the orderof the Magistrate alone was not sufficient. In those circumstances the proceedings in theMagistrate's Court also should have been filed.
There is also non-compliance with Rule 46 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in thecircumstances of the case.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
11990] 1 Sri LR.
Whether Revision lies in respect ol an order tor costs made against a complainant.APPLICATION for Revision against an order of the Magistrate's Court of Ml. Lavinia.Tilak Balasooriya for Petitioner.
J. de Almeida Guneratne for Respondent.
February 6. 1990.
ANANDA COOMARASWAMY, J.
This is an application for revision to revise the order ot the learnedMagistrate dated 2.11.83 and 3.11.83. The learned Magistrate had inier-alia, refused the postponement of the trial, acquitted the accused andordered costs against the complainant. The complainant sought permis-sion of the Attorney-General to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and thatwas refused, The complainant had therefore come by way of revision tothis court by this application.
To revise the order to the learned Magistrate, the material before thiscourt is insufficient as the petitioner has only filed the order of the learnedMagistrate and not the proceedings in that case. In view ot the fact thatthe proceedings are not before this court, is not possible to revise thoseorders. It is to be noted that his action had been filed in 1979 and afterseveral days of trial the learned Magistrate took up this trial anddischarged the accused.
I see no reason to interfere with that order, as several days of trial hadpassed before he made that order. In any event, as proceedings of theMagistrate’s Court are not before this court it is impossible to revise theorder of the learned Magistrate.
There is also non-compliance of Rule 46 of the Rules of the SupremeCourt. I therefore dismiss the petitioner's application.
Counsel for petitioner makes an oral application for leave to appeal tothe Supreme Court on the following questions of law as mentioned byhim:—
Adikaram v. Ratnawathie Bandara and Another
Application of Rule 46 to this matter,
Since the respondent has not filed any objections they conceedthe facts in the case,
Can the Court of Appeal hold with the Magistrate as he has actedcontrary to the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code by—
discharging the accused, andb) ordering state costs.
I see no questions of law in the above submission for adjudication bythe Supreme Court.
The application for leave to appeal is refused.
K. P. KARUNAWATHIE v. K. P. KUSUMASEELI AND ANOTHER