114-NLR-NLR-V-48-DE-SARAM-Appellant-and-KELLY-Inspector-of-police-Respondent.pdf
WUEYEWARDENE S.P.J.—De Saram v.. Kelly.
351
1947Present: Wijeyewardene S.P.J.
DE SARAM, Appellant, and KELLY (Inspector of Police),
Respondent.
S. C. 126—M. C„ Colombo, 87,435.
Motor car—Failure to give signal—Visible to drivers of vehicles concerned—Motor Car Ordinance, s. 91.
A person cannot be convicted of having failed to give a signal undersection 91 of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, unless there isevidence that there were vehicles on the road which were concernedin the accused giving the signal.
^^PPEAL against a conviction from the .Magistrate's Court. Colombo.
A. H. C. de Silva, for the accused, appellant.
Boyd Jayasuriya, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
July 14, 1947. Wijeyewardene S.P.J.—
The accused in this case was charged with (1) having failed to give asignal under section 91 of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938,and (2) with driving a car with an indistinct front number plate.
The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the second count, found himguilty on the first count and discharged him with a warning.
The accused has filed a petition of appeal and also papers in revision.The evidence for the prosecution was given by a Sub-Inspector and aPolice Constable. The Sub-Inspector said that he was standing on thepavement at Darley Road—Slave Island junction near Hyde Park Corner,48/29
352
WIJEYEWAKDENEDe Saram v. Kelly.
and that the accused “ failed to extend his right arm indicating hisintention to turn right into Darley Road He said that the figure “ 5 ”of the No. 4573 was defaced and the other figures partially “worn off”.He added that the car was travelling at about 25 miles per hour anddenied that there was any incident between him and the accused afterhe gave the signal to the accused to halt. He admitted however incross-examination that the accused had made a complaint against himand added that he believed it was done on the same day.
The constable supported the Sub-Inspector and said that the accuseddid not give a signal. He said however that only the figure “ 5 ”of the number was worn off. His statement that the accused didnot give a signal must be looked at in the light of his subsequentstatement that “ the Inspector detected this case and not I ”. If thatmeans anything it means that he did not detect the failure of the accusedto give the signal. He contradicted the Inspector and thereby supportedthe accused in stating that “ the accused and last witness passed words.They were arguing for about 5 minutes ”. He again contradicted theInspector when he said that the accused was driving at about 10 to 15miles per hour, as stated by the accused himself. He further admittedin cross-examination “ except for the figure 5 the rest of the numberplate was all right ”.
The accused himself gave evidence. He has been driving cars from1930 and has never been convicted of any motoring offence. He saysthat he gave the signal to show that he intended to turn to Darley Road.He says there was a military lorry about 15 feet ahead of him when hewas coming down Union Place. The presence of the lorry might perhapsaccount for the failure of the Inspector to notice the signal given by theaccused especially as the Inspector was standing on the pavement on theleft hand side.
As pointed out by me the constable contradicts the Inspector on morethan one point. If the constable is to be believed, and no reason issuggested why the constable should not be believed, the Inspector hasnot been frank in his evidence with regard to the incident that happenedimmediately after and the Inspector has also given a wrong estimateof the speed of the accused’s car. On the other hand I do not see anyreason why the evidence of the accused should not be accepted. Hestates that he gave the signal. It is quite possible that the Inspectordid not see the signal. Moreover, under section 91, the driver of the caris expected to give a signal to be visible to “the drivers of all vehiclesconcerned ”. According to the Inspector there was no traffic immediatelyin front of the car. He says there was traffic behind the accused’s carbut adds “ I was not interested in that traffic ”. This evidence leavesme in some doubt whether there was any vehicle on the road “ concerned ”in the accused giving the signal.
Taking all these circumstances into consideration I acquit the accused.
Accused acquitted.