067-NLR-NLR-V-46-ANDRISHAMY-Petitioner-and-DEONISHAMY-Respondent.pdf
W1JJBY1SWABObXE -I.—Aiidrixliatny and Deonishamy.
191
1945Present: Wijeyewardene J.
ANDRISHAMY, Petitioner, and DEONISHAMY, Respondent.
In revision M. C. Matara, 52,311.
CriminalProcedure—Complainant's application for postponement refused—
Duty of Magistrate to proceed with the trial.
When a Magistrate refuses an application for postponement made bya complainant he should proceed with the trial and ask the complainantto place his evidence before the Court.
T
HIS was an application to revise an order of the Magistrate ofMatara.
S. C. E. Rodrigo (with him S. Saravanamuttu), for the petitioner.
P.S. W. Abeyewardene, G.C., as amicus curiae.
March 9, 1945. Wijeyewardene J.—
The complainant charged the accused in this ease with offences undersections 486 and 314 of the Ceylon Penal Code. The plaint was filed onJanuary 10, 1944. On January 25th the accused was present and hepleaded not guilty. The case was fixed for trial on March 4. An entrymade on that date by the Magistrate is as follows:—“ the complainant not46/19
192
WUE YEW ARDEN E J.—Andnthamy and Deonishamy.
ready. He moves for a date. I refuse. I discharge the accused".The Magistrate has not given reasons for refusing the postponement, but,apart from that, when he refused a postponement, he should have pro-ceeded with the trial and asked the complainant to place his evidencebefore him. There is nothing in the record to show that he has doneso. I am unable to sustain the order of the Magistrate. I set aside theorder of discharge and send the case back for trial.
Order set aside.