054-NLR-NLR-V-19-ANTHONY-APPU-v.-NOORDEEN.pdf
( 223 )
[lx Revision.]
1916.
Present: Wood Renton G.J.
ANTHONY APPU v. NOORDE^N.
P. C. Chilaw, 1,040.
Habitual Criminals and Licensed ■ Convicts Orditiance, 1914, s. 6—Non-summaryproceedings fortheft—Plea ofguilty—Previous
convictionsadmitted—Convictionby Magistrateacting under
s. 162 (3), Criminal Procedure Code.
Inthis case non-summary proceedings were taken fortheft
against accused, who pleaded guilty. Thereupon the CourtSergeant submitted a list of previous convictions, and accusedadmitted the same. The Magistrate then. acting under section152(3), Criminal Procedure Code, convicted the accused on his own
plea, and sentenced him to undergo six months' imprisonment.
Held, that the Magistrate acted in contravention of section G ofthe Habitual Criminals Ordinance, 1914.
rp HE facts are set out in the judgment.
Dias, C. G., in support.
May 31, 1916. Wood Renton C.J.-—
This is an application by the Crown in revision. The accusedhas been duly served with notice of the application, but has notappeared by counsel to-day. The accused was charged in thePolice Court with the theft of coconuts. The charge was read tohim. $He pleaded not guilty. The Police Magistrate thereupontook non-summary proceedings against him. The accused pleadedguilty* and the Court Sergeant submitted a list of previous convic-tions, which the accused admitted to be correct. The learnedPplice Magistrate then, acting under section 152 J[3) of the CriminalProcedure Code, convicted the accused on his own plea, and sentencedhim to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. If there bejao authority to the contrary, it is clear that in adopting this course
1916.
Wood
Renton C.J.
AnthonyAppu v.Noordeen
(224 )
the Police Magistrate was acting in contravention of the require-ments of section 6 (2) of the Habitual Criminals and LicensedConvicts* *Ordinance, 1914. 1 He was still exercising the jurisdictionof a Police Magistrate, in spite of the fact that he was proceedingunder section 152 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section6 (2) of the Habitual Criminals and Licensed Convicts Ordinance,1914,1 provides that, where in such circumstances as those that wehave here to do' with, the proceedings are summary, the PoliceMagistrate shall discontinue such proceedings and follow theprocedure indicated in the section itself. Mr. J. S. Jayewardeneas amicus curke kindly called my attention to the decision of SirJohn Middleton in 662—P. C. Panadure. 36,404,2 which was followedby my brother Ennis in 79—D. C. (Crim.) Matara,9 to the effect that aprevious conviction of an accused person is not a circumstance thatwill entitle the President of a Village Tribunal to refer the case to thePolice Court for trial, but that if, in his opinion, it was a matterrendering the case more appropriately triable by a higher tribunal,he might act under the proviso to section 28 of Ordinance No. 24 of1889, which authorizes the Attorney-General, or a Crown Counsel,or a Government Agent having jurisdiction over the subdivisionto stop the hearing of any case and to direct it to be tried by aPolice Court. Those decisions, however, can have no applicationto a case like the present, in which the procedure has been distinctlylaid down by the Legislature itself in terms with which the PoliceMagistrate has not complied. Mr. Dias, C. C., on behalf of theCrown, has called my attention to a decision of my brotherDe Sampayo in P. C. Colombo, 54,4 which is directly in point.Acting in revision, I set aside the conviction and sentence on theaccused, and send the case back to be dealt with in due course oflaw in conformity with the provisions of the enactment abovereferred to. If the ulterior proceedings should result in a convic-tion, the Court of trial will no doubt take account, in passing sentence,of whatever period of imprisonment', if any, the accused may alreadyhave undergone.
Set aside-
' No. 32 of 1914.
(1911) (i S. C. D. 49.
3 S. G. AT., Aug. 30, 1912.
* S. C. M., May 22. 1916..