013-NLR-NLR-V-21-AIYA-v.-PENIYA.pdf
( 72 )
1918,
[In Bevision.] .
AIYA v. PENIYA.
Present: Shaw J.
P. G. Balapitiya, 45,764.
Deaf and dumbaccused—Unableto understand the nature ofproceedings
against him.
Where anaccused was adeaf and dumb person, whocannotbe
made to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, andwhere the Magistrate notwithstanding heard the evidence againsthim and convicted him—
Held, that the convictionwas illegal. Some personmastbe
present inCourt- skilled tointerpret between the deafmnteand
the Court.
i^pHE facts appear from the judgment.
No appearance.
( 78 )
November 18, 1918. Shaw J.—
This case has been referred to the Supreme Court by the italics{Magistrate of Balapitiya. The ^Mag^strate states in his judgmentthat the accused is deaf and dumb, and cannot be made to under-stand the nature of the proceedings against him. The Magistrate,notwithstanding this, heard the evidence against the accused, andhaving convicted him of theft, treated him as a first offender, andbound him over in Bs. 50 to be of good behaviour for a period ofsix months, and directed his mother to stand surety. The con-viction must be set aside, as no person can be tried for a criminaloffence unless he be given an opportunity of making his defence.
Either some person must be present in Court skilled to interpretbetween the deaf mute and the Court, or, if the accused is imbecileby reason of his infirmity, he can be dealt with under ChapterXXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code.
iMft.
AjtyaMfc
Set aside.