077-NLR-NLR-V-23-BORHAM-v.-SILVA.pdf
( 276 )
1921.
Present: De Sampayo J.
BORHAM v. SILVA.
090—P. C. BalapUiya, 147.
Unlawful gaming — Breach of Village Commurtity rules — Exclusivejurisdiction of Village Tribunal.
The Village Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to try offencesmade punishable under Village Community rules, and suchjurisdiction cannot be ousted by the Police Court even if theMagistrate thinks that tho offence is of a serious nature.GoonetiUehe v. Punchi Singho1 followed.
r | THE facts are set- out in the judgment.
Amaaresekera, for accused, appellant.
December 14,1921. Db Sampayo J.—
This is a somewhat curious case. A police sergeant institutedthis case in the Police Court charging a number of persons withhaving committed unlawful gaming in breach of rulo 31 (12) ofthe rules framed under sections 6 and 17 of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance, No. 24 of 1889. It strikes one at once that if theoffence is committing a breach of the Village Community rules,, theproper tribunal to try it is the Village Tribunal even apart from theparticular provision of the Village Communities Ordinance withregard to the exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters pf the VillageTribunal. There is no aggravating circumstance in this case whichmay possibly give the offence a serious character, .so that it may besaid not to be adequately punished by the punitive jurisdiction ofthe .Village Tribunal. This very point was decided in GoonetiUekev. Punchi Singho,1 where the principle was established that theVillage Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offencesfor the punishment, of which a Village Committee has in terms ofOrdinance No. 24 of 1889 made provision by role, and that suchjurisdiction cannot be ousted by the Police Court even if theMagistrate thinks that the offence is of a serious nature. I saidthis was a curious case, because the police made the charge underthe rules framed under the Village Communities Ordinance, and yetinstituted the case in the Police Court. This appeal is taken bythe fifth accused, who has been fined Rs. 50. I think bis appeal isentitled to succeed. The other accused was fined small sums, someof which have been paid, and therefore there is no necessity toconsider their cases in any respect.
1 3 BaL 113.
Set aside.