125-NLR-NLR-V-22-GUNAWARDENE-v.-PUNCHIRALA-et-al.pdf
( «1 )
Present: De Sampayo J.
GUNAWAKDENE v. FUNCHIRALA et al.
P. G. Kurunegdla, 11,602.
Whipping—Theft of a bull—Jurisdiction of Police Court—OrdinanceNo. 4 of mi.
A Police Court has no jurisdiction, except where the offender-isa person under sixteen years of age, to inflict whipping or lashes fortheft of a bull under section 368 of the Penal Code.
fJ^HE foots appear from the judgment.
M. W. B. de Silva, C.O., in support.
June 15, 1921. De Samfayo J.—
In this case the accused was convicted of the offence of theft Of abull under section 368 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate sentencedhim to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and to receive twentystrokes with a rattan. The Penal Code does provide for whippingin the oase of offences under section 368. The Police Court juris-diction to indict lashes is, however, limited. Under section 15 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code the Police Court is authorized toinflict whipping if the offender is under sixteen years of age. Thatprovision does not apply in this case, because the accused person isnot under that age, but is an adult. The only other provisionauthorizing the Police Court to inflict lashes is that contained inOrdinance No. 4 of 1891. The Magistrate, in making the presentorder, refers to that Ordinance as his authority. But he apparentlymade a mistake as to the extent of the power given to him underthat Ordinance. Section 4 (a) gives a Police.Magistrate jurisdictionin this respeot only in cases of prosecutions for the offence of theftof praedial produce. The theft of a bull is a different thing. Oh theapplication of the Solicitor-General for revision of the sentence Imake order deleting the sentence of whipping.
1921.
Varied.