108-NLR-NLR-V-48-CROOS-et-al.-Appellants-and-SELVADURAI-Forest-Officer-Respondent.pdf
NAG ALIN GAM A.J.—Croos v. Selvadurai.
335
1947Present: Nagalingam A. J.
CROOS et al., Appellants, and SELVADURAI (Forest Officer),
Respondent.
101-102 ; 103-J.09 ; 110—M. C. Chilaw, 30,326: 30,327; 30,878.
Forest Ordinance—Prosecution under—Acquittal of accused—Jurisdiction ofCourt to confiscate timber seized.
Where, in a prosecution under the Forest Ordinance, the accused isacquitted, any timber seized in the possession of the accused cannot be-ordered to be delivered to the complainant.
^ PPEALS against certain orders of the Magistrate of Chilaw.
H. C. de Silva, for the accused, appellants.
J. G. T. Weerarastne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
Cur adv. unit.
April 1, 1947. Nagalingam A.J.—
The several appeals in these three cases deal with the same question oflaw and I shall consolidate them for the purpose of my judgment. Theappeals are from the orders of the Magistrate of Chilaw directing thatcertain timber seized in the possession of the appellants should be deliveredto the complainant. The appellants were charged with having committed
• (1942) 44 N. L. R.58-* (1944) 45 N. L. R. 479.
48/28
336
NAGALINGAM AJ.—Croos v. Selvadurai.
offences unde" the Forest Ordinance and they were acquitted on pointsof law raised on th–ir behalf. After the appealable period was over theappellants applied to tne learned Magistrate for an order directing thedelivery to them of timber which had been seized in connection with theaccusation against them of having committed the offences of which theyhad been acquitted. The learned Magistrate made order refusing theirapplication holding that the interests of justice demanded that the timbershould be delivered to the complainant.
On appeal it has been contended that the learned Magistrate had nojurisdiction to make the orders he did and the case of Eyers v. Muthu~kumaru et al. ’ was cited in support. The judgment in this case wasdelivered by Wood Renton C.J who has exhaustively examined allthe relevant sections and dealt with all the points that have been urged bylearned Crown Counsel in his endeavour to uphold the order of thelearned Magistrate. This case is a much stronger one than the presentinasmuch as the accused there made admissions of having felled Crowntimber and'.vm evidence to show that they were prepared to pay
compensation to the Crown but notwithstanding this very strong circum-stance the learned Chief Justice held that on a true view of the relevantprovisions of the Forest Ordinance in view of the acquittal no order fordelivery of property 1c the Crown could have been made. In regard tothe cases before me, in one there is evidence of an express claim madeby the accused to the timber seized and in the other two the utmost thatcan be said is that there is no evidence of an assertion of claim made by theaccused in those cases although there is no admission by them that thetimber seized belonged to the Crown.
Following the case cited I would allow the appeals and direct that thetimber seized in each of these cases be delivered over to the respectiveaccused persons.
Appeals allowed.
' U917) l C.WJt. 3S2.