031-NLR-NLR-V-58-D.-D.-BENJAMIN-Petitioner-and-E.-J.-GUNAWARDENA-S.-I.-Police-Respondent.pdf
3956Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.
.T). D. BENJAMIN, Petitioner, «»JE. J. GUNAWABDENA (S. I. Police),
Respondent
316—Application in Revision in 31. C. Avissaivella, 10,43-8
•Compounding of offences—Scope of magistrate's jurisdiction—Criminal ProcedureCode, s. 290.
A Magistrate, in granting his consent under section 200 of the CriminalProcedure Codo to the compounding of an offence, has no jurisdiction to laydown any terms binding the parties.
PPLIC AT ION to revise an order of thd* Magistrate’s Court-,Avissawella.
31. 31. Kumarakidasingham, for the accused-petitioner.
E. A. G. de Silva, for the complainant-respondent.
Car. adv. vult.
October 12, 1956. ,H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
The petitioner and another person were charged in the Magistrate’s-Court of Avissawella with the offence of intimidation. On ISth Juner1954, the ease was compounded and the accused discharged on terms thusrecorded by the Magistrate :—.
“ It is now agreed between tire parties that tlic budded rubber portion-in Rose Valley Estate be handed over to Albert Edirisinglie, the V. H-of Mabula, to be looked after.
D. Marthcenu the complainant in this case will file a civil actionfor declaration of title to the said plantation within two months fromtoday. The V. H. of Mabula will deposit the proceeds of this buddedrubber plantation to the credit of the civil case.- ''
<The accused and complainant further undertake not to enter into-this budded rubber portion until the decision in the civil action. If'the civil action is not filed on or before ISth August, 1954, then thepossession of this budded rubber portion is to be handed over to the 1staccused and he will also hand over the proceeds of this budded rubber-portion for the two months to the 1st accused.
In view of this agreement the parties move to compound the case..I allow the application and discharge the accused. ”
An action for declaration of title to the land in question was subse-quently filed by the complainant in the District Court, but was withdrawn,on loth June 1956 with liberty to institute an action for partition.
The petitioner thereafter applied on 25th June 1956 to the Court foran order “ discharging the Village Headman from managing the buddedrubber portion of the Rose Valley Estate ”. Upon this application the-Magistrate on 21st July 1956 made the order now complained against,directing “ that the V. H. do hand over the land in question to the-complainant who was in possession at the time the Village Headmantook over ”.
– In. my opinion botli the petitioner, in making this application for the-** discharge ” of the Headman from management, and the Magistrate, indirecting restoration of possession of the land to the complainant, havc-misconceived the power of a Magistrate’s Court in regard to such matters.
A Magistrate, in granting his consent under section 290 of the Codeto the compounding of a case, has the dutj' only to state his reasonsfor consent, but has no jurisdiction to lay down any terms binding theparties. The journal entry of ISth June 1951 is an ORDER, only tn sofar as it alloics the compounding and discharges (and acquits—vide section290 (5) ) the accused. The Magistrate did not in fact make, and hadindeed no power to make, any order that the Headman should manage-the land. That part of the entry which relates to the terms on whichthe parties applied to compound the case is only a record by the-Magistrate of an agreement between the parties—an agreement whichconstitutes sufficient reason for the Magistrate to consent to the com-pounding- I see at present no objection whatever to such a record being
made, but the making of it docs not have the effect of extending theMagistrate’s jurisdiction bej-ond its point of termination, i.c., the dischargeof the accused, or of conferring jurisdiction to determine rights in property.This latter jurisdiction a Magistrate enjoys, but only for the limitedpurpose of determining whether or not a person charged is guilty of someoffence, and not for the purpose of placing any party in possession ofland.
In my opinion therefore—
(а)the Magistrate was wrongly called upon to vacate his order as to
management, for the reason that he made 90 such order ;
(б)the Magistrate should not have directed restoration of possession to
the complainant, because he lacked the jurisdiction to do so.
For these reasons I set aside the order of 21st July 1956. The partiesand the Village Headman must advise themselves on the problem withwhich they arc now faced.
Order sei aside.