DASANAYAKE APPUHAMY, Appellant, and KUMARASINGHE (D. R. O.), Respondent

107-NLR-NLR-V-47-DASANAYAKE-APPUHAMY-Appellant-and-KUMARASINGHE-D.-R.-O.-Respondent.pdf


810
Dasanaydke Appuhamy v. Kumaraoinghe.
1946Present : Howard C.J.DASANAYAKE APPUHAMY, Appellant, and KUMARASINGHE(D. R. O.), Respondent.
329—M. C. Matale, 6,165.
Evidence—Charge of failure to obey requisition order—Production of therequisition order necessary—Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulation 37 (1).In a prosecution for {failure to deliver property requisitioned underRegulation 37 of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations the requisitionorder should be produced in evidence if there is nothing else to showthat the requisition had been properly made.
PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court, Matale.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
V. T. Thamotheram, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
1 {1927) 28 N. L. R. 477.* {1941) 20 C. L. W. 119.8 (1936) 6 C. L. W. 37.
HOWARD C.J.—Cecily Hamy v. Zoym.
311
June 4, 1946. Howard C-J.—
It is impossible to support the conviction in this case. The appellantwas charged with failing to place 17 bushels of paddy, which had beenrequisitioned in accordance with an order made by the AssistantGovernment Agent, Matale, a competent authority appointed in thatbehalf, at the disposal of the Village Headman of Pallegania. The onlyevidence in support of this charge was that of the Headman who statedthat he obtained a t requisition order from the Assistant GovernmentAgent through the T>. R. O. on June 14, 1945. That requisition orderwas not produced in evidence and therefore there was nothing before theMagistrate to show that the requisition had been .properly made.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.
Appeal allowed.