089-NLR-NLR-V-58-K.-VALLIAMMAI-Appellant-and-F.-D.-T.-WEBER-Inspector-of-police-Respondent.pdf
1956Present: Sinnefamby, J.
K.VALLIAMMAI, Appellant, and F. D. T. WEBER(Inspector of Police), Respondent
S. G. S31—M. G. Kdlmunai, 22,531
Evidence—Expert—IMuxt he always give reasons for his opinion ?—Evidence Ordinances. 51—Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 172), ss. 22, 70.In a prosecution for unlawful possession of parts of n liemp plant, an ExciseInspector who was specially trained to identify parts of hemp plants expressedtho view that a parcel which was in the possession of the accused contained partsof tho hemp plant botanically called canabis saliva. Xo objection was taken tothe evidence of the expert.
Held, that the ovidcnco of tho expert could not be rejected merely boeausoho did notstato the grounds upon which he based his opinion.
-j^^-PPEAL from a judgment of tho Magistrate’s Court, Ivalmiiinii.
G. T. Olegasegare.n, for tho accused-appellant..
B. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
October 31, 19oG. Sink etamb v, J.—
The accused in this case is charged with having been in possession of aquantity of ganja in contravention of section 76 read with 22 of Chapter172 of the Legislative Enactments. She was convicted and sentenced topay a fine of Rs. 100.
Tire evidence of the police sergeant is that he found a parcel on t-iielap of the accused when he stojjped bus No. CV 173S on certain informa-tion and examined it. At his request, the accused handed the parcel to himand lie found that it contained parts of a hemp plant. The accused deniedthat any jiaiecl was taken from her lap. On the contrary, sho says thatthe police sergeant picked up a pared from hisidc the front scat. Thedriver of tiic bus was called to support her evidence. He admitted thattho police sergeant took a parcel when lie examined tho bus. The parcel,he said, was taken from under tho seat immediately preceding thoaccused’s seat.
On the question of fact as to whether the parcel -was taken from undertho seat in front of the accused’s seat or from the accused’s lap, tholearned Magistrate has held that tho police sergeant’s evidence is true.
I see no roason to interfere with that finding:
Learned Counsel also contended that the evidence in regard to whetherthe parcel contained hemp plants was unsatisfactory and for that reasonhis client was entitled to an acquittal. The evidence of an Excise Inspectorwho was specially tiained to identify parts of Jiemp plants was led.That officer in the course of his evidence, examined the hemp plant inCourt after breaking the seal and opening the parcel. Ho expressedthe view that the contents of that parcel arc parts of tho hemp plantbotanically called canabis saliva. Learned Counsel contended that thisevidence is insufficient. His argument is that before the evidence of anexpert can be called, the expert must in terms of section 51 of theEvidence Act state to Court the ground on which his opinion was based,so that it will enable the Court to test it. He relied upon the case ofRamie Ram Singh v. Emperor reported in 3G Criminal Law Journal, 1935,page 511. It is not known whether in that case tho objection was takento the evidence of tho expert in the original Court, but it would appearthat the Court had not ascertained the grounds on which tho expertbased his opinion..
In the present case, the expert has not stated tho grounds upon whichho came to tho conclusion that the parcel contained parts of the hempplant but in the trial Court his evidence was not questioned, indeedhe was not cross-examined at all.
The question now is whether in that state of affairs, the Appeal Courtcai leject an expert’s evidence merely because he had not stated thegrounds upon which he based his opinion. Learned Crown Counsel citedseveral cases in which this Court has acted upon opinions expressed byexperts who have ixot stated the grounds on which they based their■ oihnion. Some of these cases axe unreported. I would refer to two of them.In S. C. Minutes 5G5 of 195G, in M. C. Colombo, 2G949/A the SupremeCourt refused to interfere. Likewise, in a case reported in 31 N.L.R.,page. 332 in the absence of a contest as to the capacity of an officer toidentify excisable articles, the Supreme Court refused to set- aside theconviction.
There is also a case reported in the Excise Judgments File bearingNo. 4 of the E. V. O. 3S, S. C. Minutes 945, M. 0. Ratnapura 10,277.In that case this Court once again accepted the evidence of an ExciseInspector who professed to possess expert knowledge in regard to themanufacture of various liquors on the ground that the defence did notat tho trial challenge the competency of the Inspector to speak on thesetechnical subjects.
Having regard to the line of local cases, in which our Courts have acceptedthe evidence of an expert who did not state the grounds on' which hebases his opinion, T. do ixot think I should follow the Indian case if in thatcase the objection was raised for the first time in appeal and upheld.
[His Lordship then considered the question of sentence, andconcluded :—]
Appeal dismissed.
I am satisfied that the evidence on record justified the conclusionwhich tho leanieil Magistrate has readied. The appeal is accordinglydismissed.