112-NLR-NLR-V-50-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Appellant-and-JOHAR-et-al.-Respondents.pdf
454
Attorney-General v. Johar
1949Present : Wijeyewardene C.J. and Canekeratne J.ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and JOHAR et al.,Respondents
S. C. 1,521—M. C. Colombo, 44,680
Petting on Horse Racing Ordinance—Search of premises—Inspector—Notin charge of station—Search regular—Chapter 36—Section 15 (2) asamended by Ordinance No. 55 of 1943.
The Police officer empowered to make a search under section 15 (2)of the Betting on Horse Racing Ordinance need not be an officer incharge of a Police Station.
Sabapathy v. Richard (1948) 49 N. L. R. 406, overruled.
WUEYEWAHI>B1)IE C.J.—Attorney-General v. Johar
455
/V PPEAT, from a judgment of the Magistrate, Colombo. This casewas referred to a Bench of two Judges by Jayetileke S.P.J.
F. B. P. Jayaswriya, Grown Counsel, for the Crown.
B. Wikramanayake, K.G., with H. W. Jciyewardene, for the accusedrespondents.
Our. adv. vult.
July 22, 1949. Wijbyewabdene C.J.—
The two accused were charged with having committed certain offencespunishable under section 10 (2) of the Betting on Horse RacingOrdinance as amended by Ordinance No. 55 of 1943.
. Inspector Thiedeman, the Officer-in-Charge of the Cinnamon GardensPolice Station, stated in the course of his evidence that the premises andthe two accused mentioned in the charges were searched by two Sub-Inspectors of Police who were not in charge of a Police Station. There-upon, the Magistrate discharged.the accused, as he thought that, in theabsence of a search warrant, the search could not be made by an officerwho was not in charge of a Police Station.
The relevant words in section 15 (2) of the Betting on Horse RacingOrdinance as amended by Ordinance No. 55 of 1943 are :
“ Where a Police Officer of or above the rank of a Sergeant in chargeof a Police Station has reason to suspect that any such offence isbeing …. committed …. he may exercise all or anyof the powers which could have been conferred on him by sub-section 1 ”.
These words empower “ a Police Officer of or above the rank of aSergeant in charge of a Police Station ” to make the necessary search.The officers indicated by those words are :
(а)a Police Officer of the rank of Sergeant in charge of a Police Station
and
(б)a Police Officer above the rank of a Sergeant in charge of a Police
Station.
I am unable to hold that the officers referred to in {&) must be alsoofficers in charge of a Police Station. In order to construe the sectionin that way, one has to read the section as if there was a commaor “ and ” after “ Sergeant ”.
The Magistrate has misdirected himself in holding that a Police Officermating a search under section 15 (2) must always be an Officer in chargeof a Police Station.
I set aside the order of discharge and direct the Magistrate to proceedto hear the case according to law.
Caitbkebatme J.—I agree.
Sent back for trial.