( 182 )
ALISANDRY v. BRAMPY el al.
P. C., Colombo, 6,015.
Warrant of arrest—Its requisites—When a Police Magistrate may try aperson for escape from lawful custody—Criminal Procedure Code,Schedule II., p. 326.
A warrant of arrest in these terms, “ Whereas B of Wailgama“ stands charged with the offences of criminal trespass, theft, and“ voluntarily causing hurt, you are hereby directed to arrest the said“ B,” &c., is defective in that it neither sufficiently particularizesthe offences referred to in it, nor specifies the sections of the PenalCode relating to such offences.
A Police Magistrate has power to try a person for escaping fromlawful custody only when the offence for which such person wasarrested is one cognizable by a Police Court.
facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment.^Wendt, for appellant.
28th August, 1896. Withers, J.—
The conviction of the first accused appellant in this case must,I think, be quashed. This person was convicted of the offence ofescaping from lawful custody. The point of law taken on hisbehalf was that the offences for which he was arrested and taken
( 183 )
into lavrful custody were offences not cognizable by the PoliceCourt. Hence the District Court was the Court having jurisdiction(see Schedule II., Criminal Procedure Code, p. 326), and not thePolice Court. The warrant of arrest under which the man wasarrested was not properly put in evidence, but it is to be foundstitched in the record forming page 16, and I will examine it. Itis directed to the Police Vidan6 of Udamapitigama, and recitesas follows :—“ Whereas Edirisinhage Brampy Appu of Wailgama“ stands charge with the offences of criminal trespass, theft, and“ voluntarily causing hurt, you are hereby directed to arrest the“ said Edirisinhage Brampy Appu.”
This is a defective warrant, in that it fails to particularize theoffence mentioned in it. Criminal trespass is a generic word fora variety of offences, and it may signify entrance upon propertyin a person’s possession with intent to commit an offence punishablewith imprisonment of either description for ten years. Such anoffence is not cognizable by a Police Court.
The offence of theft mentioned in the warrant does not statewhether it is theft from the person, or from a dwelling-house, orthe value of the property stolen. There are cases of theft whichare not cognizable by a Police Court.
The other offence of voluntarily causing hurt may be causinghurt which a cutting instrument. If •so it would be an offence notcognizable by the Police Court.
The sections of the Ordinance relating to the offences are notspecified in the warrant. They should have been specified so asto show what Court had proper cognizance of them. This warrantbeing, so to speak, at large, the complainant should have provedthat the information or complaint upon which it was issued relatedto offences cognizable by a Police Court.
I sent for the proceedings to see what the offences were to whichthe original information related.
The information charged the appellant with entering com-plainant’s house with intent to commit theft, and with the com-mission of theft therein. It further charged him with stabbingcomplainant with a knife. These offences are clearly beyond thejurisdiction of the Police Court to try summarily. Consequentlyin the circumstances the Police Magistrate was not competentsummarily to try the appellant for escaping from the custody ofthe officer who arrested him under the warrant. It was issuedon the charge of offences not cognizable by the Police Court.
I must therefore quash the judgment and sentence of the firstaccused.
August 28.Withers, J.
ALISANDRY v. BRAMPY et al