113-NLR-NLR-V-62-COMMISSIONER-OF-AGRARIAN-SERVICES-Appellant-and-V.-KUMARASAMY-Respondent.pdf
574
Commissioner of Agrarian Services v. Kumarasatny
1961Present :Sansoni,? J.COMMISSIONER OF AGRARIAN SERVICES, Appellant, and
V. RUMARASAMY, Respondent
S. G. 672—M. G. Trincomalee, 24150
Paddy Lands Act, ATo. 1 of 1958—Unlawful eviction of tenant cultivator Jurisdic-tion of Magistrate's Court in respect of such offence—Tenant cultivator "—Sections 3 (1), 4 (5), 4 (9), 21 {!), 51, 63—Criminal Procedure Code, S3. 9,135.
In a prosecution for the wrongful eviction of a tenant cultivator in breach ofsection 4 (5) of the Paddy Lands Act, "Nfo. 1 of 1958—
Held, (i) that a Magistrate’s Court has jurisdiction under sections 9 and 135of the Criminal Procedure Code to try an offence committed in breach of section4 (5) of the Paddy Lands Act.
(ii) that where the rent for the letting of an extent of paddy land consistsof paddy and not of money, the lessee would not be a tenant cultivator withinthe meaning of section 3 (1) of the Paddy Lands Act unless the paddy giveras rent is a share of the produce from the extent of the land let. 1
1 {1948) 49 N. L. B. 312.
SAJN'SONT, J".—Commissioner of Agrarian Services v. K.umarasamy
B7S
^pPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Trincomalee.
V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for the Complainant-Appellant.S. Sharvananda, for the Accused-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
„ February 1, 1961. Sastsoki, J.—
This is an appeal by the Attorney-General from an acquittal. Thecharge on which the case went to trial reads :
“ You are hereby charged, that you did, within the jurisdiction of thisCourt, being the landlord of an extent of paddy land called Pattanai-pathi situated at Thiriyai in the Administrative District of Trincomaleein which Administrative District the provisions of the Paddy LandsAct, No. 1 of 1958 that come into operation on a date appointed undersub-section 1 of section 2 have not been brought into operation did,on or about the 20th day of August, 1958, at Thiriyai, evict fromthe said extent of land without the written sanction of the Commissionerof Agrarian Services, one S. Ponnudurai who would be the tenantcultivator of the said extent of land if those provisions were in opera-tion in the said Administrative District in breach of section 4 (5) of thePaddy Lands Act No. 1 of 1958 and did thereby commit an offencepunishable under section 4 (9) of the said Act.”
The learned Magistrate found, on the facts, that the charge had beenproved, but he held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case, althoughtliis point was not raised by the defence and was therefore not met bythe prosecution at the trial. His reason was that neither section 4 (5)nor section 4 (9) of the Act provides which Magistrate’s Court shouldhave jurisdiction in respect of such an offence. He compared section4 with section 21 (1) which empowers a Magistrate’s Court “ withinwhose jurisdiction such extent wholly or mainly lies ”, to issue an orderof eviction. The reason for such a provision in section 21 (1) obviouslyis that unless a Magistrate’s Court is empowered to issue an order ofeviction, it would have no jurisdiction to do so under the Criminal Pro-cedure Code. But in view of sections 9 and 135 of that Code whichconfer jurisdiction on a Magistrate’s Court to try all prosecutions foroffences committed within its local jurisdiction, there was no need forfurther provision to be made in this behalf in the Act. I find that thelearned Magistrate has referred to section 9 in his order, and this shouldhave been sufficient authority for him to hold that he had jurisdiction in.. this case.
Another ground on which he held against the prosecution was that i^had failed to mark in evidence or recite in the charge the Gazette whichbrought into operation section 51 of the Act in respect of the Trincomaleedistrict. Section 51 provides for the appointment of Deputy and Assis-tant Commissioners of Agrarian Services and other officers and servantsfor the purposes of the Act : it has nothing to do with the creation of the
.676
SANS ONI, J.—Commissioner of Agrarian Services v. Kumar asarriy
offence charged. The cases relied on by the learned Magistrate, whichrequire that when a charge is laid under a rule, regulation or by-law whichis required by law to be published in the Gazette, the Gazette should-be referred to in the charge, have no application to this case. The learned;Magistrate apparently thought that the evidence of the Assistant Com-missioner of Agrarian Services, who stated that the Act had not beenbrought into operation in that district, could not be acted on unless hehad the status of that office and that status could not be proved unlessthe Government Gazette bringing section 51 into operation in that districtwas mentioned in the charge. Nobody questioned the status of thewitness, who said that he was duly appointed. But in any case therewas no need for him to have a particular status to give such evidence :if the evidence he gave was believed, nothing more was necessary. Xdo not see how a Gazette dealing with the matter of his appointment canfind a place in the charge.
Although the grounds on which the acquittal was based are thereforewrong, I have still to decide whether the order should be set aside. Mr.Sharvananda urged that the prosecution had failed to prove that theperson evicted came within the expression “ tenant cultivator ”. Section3 (1) provides that a person shall be the tenant cultivator of an extentof paddy land when he is the cultivator of an extent let to him under anyoral or written agreement, and if he is a citizen of Ceylon. The pointstressed on behalf of the accused is that the word ** let ” when usedwith reference to any extent of paddy land has been defined in section63 of the Act. It means “ to permit any person, under an oral or a writtenagreement, to occupy and use such extent in consideration of the per-formance of any service by him or the payment of rent consisting of asum of money or a share of the produce from such extent.”
In this case, the alleged tenant cultivator referred, in the course of hisevidence, to the payment of ** lease money ”. He then produced asP2 what he called a receipt for the lease paoney. A year’s ‘ * lea se amount’ ’has been described in that document as six avanams of paddy. Thedocument on which the land was leased to him has also been produced,but it does not specify what the consideration or the rent for the lettingconsisted of. It is not clear to me, from the evidence led by the prose-cution, whether the consideration consisted of money or of paddy. Ifit was the latter, it would not be a letting under the Act unless that paddywas a share of the produce from the extent of land let.
Since the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the evidence proved thecharge, what appears to me to be ambiguous was probably not so tohim. But the evidence on record is nob as clear as -it should be, as towhat the terms of the agreement were. This appears to me to be acase where a fresh investigation of the facts should be held.
In the circumstances I set aside the order of acquittal and send the caseback for a fresh trial by another Magistrate.
Order of acquittal set aside
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRESS, CEYLON.