054-NLR-NLR-V-37-BANDARANAYAKE-v.-APPUSINGHO-et-al.pdf
MAARTENSZ J.—Bandaranayake v. Appusingho.
273
1935Present: Maartensz J.
BANDARANAYAKE v. APPUSINGHO et al.
108—P. C. Puttalam, 19,970.
Police Constable—Motor-bus suspected of overloading—Refusal to obey ordersto proceed to a destination—Alleged obstruction—Penal Code, s. 183.
A Police Constable has no right to order the driver of a motor bus,suspected of carrying goods in excess of the quantity it is licensed tocarry, to proceed to a stated destination for the purpose of having thegoods weighed.
^^PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Puttalam.
A. W. Nadarajah, for the first accused, appellant.
E. B. Wickremanayake, Acting C.C., appears as amicus curiae, on notice-April 8, 1935. Maartensz J.—
The appellant in this case, who is the driver of mail bus No. X 6457rwas with the second accused, convicted of voluntarily obstructing Police
274
POYSER J.—Wickremesuriya v. Silva.
Constable 2566 in the discharge of his public functions ih that they didnot allow the Police Constable to weigh the goods carried by the bus.
The case for^ the prosecution is that on December 31 the PoliceConstable who was on duty at the market junction in Puttalam saw thebus driven by the accused come along the Anuradhapura road and turntowards the Post Office with a full load of passengers and goods on theroof. As the goods on the roof appeared to be in excess of the quantitywhich the bus was allowed to carry the Constable went up to the bus standwhere the bus stopped and ordered the driver and the conductor not tounload the goods. The first accused said he would not allow the goodsto be weighed and turning to the conductor told him to unload the goods.It transpires frm the evidence of Police Constable Lawaris that whatPolice Constable Peter Singho wanted the first accused to do was to drivethe bus with the goods to the Railway Station where the weight of thegoods could be ascertained by the weighing machine or weighing platformat the Railway Station. Whether the accused unloaded the goods ornot at the bus stand, it was impossible for the constable to have weighedthe goods there. The obstruction therefore consisted in the refusal ofthe driver, the appellant, to drive the bus to the Railway Station. This,of course, was an order which he had no legal right to give and the refusalof the accused to obey it is not an obstruction punishable under section183 of the Penal Code.
I allow the appeal and acquit the first accused. For the same reasons,in revision, I set aside the conviction of second accused and acquit him.
Set aside.