SOERTSZ S.P. J.—Onattanda There v. V. ff. of Madakotuuxi.
1946Present: Keuneman J.
CASSIM (S.I., POLICE), Appellant, and THA.TUDEEN,Respondent.
216—M. C. Colombo, 1,005.
Appeal—Prosecution under Defence (Control of Textiles) Regulations—Dismissal op ground, that sanction of the Textile Controller had not beenobtained—Time limit for appeal.
Where, in a prosecution under the Defence (Control of Textiles)Regulations, the Court acquitted the accused on the ground that thesanction of the Textile Controller had not been obtained by the prose-cution—
Held, that the order of Court was one of discharge and not of acquittaland tho remedy of the complainant was by way of appeal within ten days
PPEAL against an order of acquittal entered by the Magistrate’sCourt, Colombo. The accused was charged with having com-
mitted an offence under the Defence (Control of Textiles) Regulations.At the commencement of the trial Counsel for the accused took anobjection to the proceedings on the ground that the sanction of theController of Textiles had not been obtained for the prosecution. Theobjection was upheld and the accused discharged. The complainantappealed with the sanction of the Attorney-General more than ten days,but within twenty-eight days, after the order of discharge.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the accused, respondent.—The appeal is out oftime and must be rejected. The Magistrate’s order was an order ofdischarge and hence appealable without the Attorney-General’s sanction.The appeal should have been filed within ten days of the order. Theobtaining of the Attorney-General’s sanction which was superfluous doesnot entitle the appellant to file the appeal after the lapse of the ten days—Police Sergeant Banda v. Dalpatadu1; Sumangala Thero q. PiyatissaThe.ro*.
1 (1931) I. C. L. W. 2.
(1937) 39 N. L. It. 26S.
KISH NEMAN J.—Casaim v. Thajudeen.
T. K. Curtis, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.—The order of theMagistrate is an appealable order and was clearly wrong. The sanctionof the Deputy Controller which had been given in this case was sufficientin view of the amendment to the regulation in question.
January 31, 1946. KebNeman J.—
I think the preliminary objection taken in this case is sound. Theorder of the Magistrate must be regarded as an order of discharge andnot of an acquittal. It has to be remembered that the objection actuallytaken was that the prosecution had failed to obtain the sanction of theTextile Controller. If such an objection succeeded, it seems obviousthat the Magistrate should not have acquitted the prisoner altogether butmerely discharged him and it may have been open to the prosecutionafter having obtained the necessary sanction to proceed once more tocharge the prisoner. The appeal is dismissed.