088-NLR-NLR-V-05-CASSIM-v.-KANDAPPA.pdf
( 311 )
CASSIM v. KANDAPPA.P. C., Chilaw, 18,112.
. Sentence of fine of Rs. 20 coupled with an order to keep the peace—Right toappeal therefrom.’
There can be no appeal against a sentence of fine of Bs. 20 coupledwith an order to keep the peace.
Binding over a party to keep the peace is not a “punishment “ underthe Penal or Criminal Procedure Code.
T
HIS was an appeal by the accused who had been sentencedto a fine of Its. 20 and bound over to keep the peace for
six months, upon a conviction for theft of coconuts and forcriminal trespass under sections 368 and 433 of the Penal. Code.
H. Jayawanlene, for appellant, opened the facts of the case.[Bonser, C.J.—Does an appeal lie? The fine is not over Es. 25.]The order to keep the peace'', in addition to the fine makes it appeal-able. because the order to keep the peace is a punishment in additionto the fine. [Bonser, C.J.—Is the order a punishment?] Isubmit so. [Bonser, C.J.—Section 52 of the Penal Code defineswhat punishment is, and an order of this kind does not fall withinthe term. The appeal cannot be heard.]
24-
1901
December 13
1001.
December 13.
( 312 )
18th December, 1901. Boxser, C.J.—
In this case the appellant went on a certain land, into aeocoanut garden with other people to pluck nuts. For that hewas prosecuted and has been sentenced to a fine of Bs. 20 andbound over to keep the peace for six months. It seems to methat no appeal will lie against this conviction, because it is a casewhere the accused has been sentenced to a fine not exceedingBs. 20 and to no other punishment. It is clear that bindingover to keep the peace is not a punishment. Punishment is notdefined in the Criminal Procedure Code, but it is defined in thePenal Code. The Criminal Procedure Code says in § 8 thatexpressions not defined in the Code shall have the same meaningas they have in the Penal Code. Section 52 enumerates punish- ■ments, and binding over to keep the peace is not one of them.
I quite agree with the Magistrate that it is very desirable thatpersons should not be allowed to go into lands which are in theoccupation of others and pluck nuts with the intention of assertinga claim or right. If they have any right or claim they must pressit in the Civil Courts.