061-NLR-NLR-V-43-DE-SILVA-v.-DALPATADU.pdf
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—de Silva v. Dalpatadu.
239
.1942
PresentWijeyewardene J.
DE SILVA v. DALPATADU.
776—M. C. Panadure, 8,671. ,
Jurisdiction—Failure to transmit duplicates of deeds—Power of Magistrate totry offence under Notaries Ordinance summarily as District Judge—Reason inadequate—Criminal Procedure Code, s. 152 (3).
A Magistrate is not justified in trying summarily under section 152 (3)of the Criminal Procedure Code an offence under rule 25 of section 30 ofthe Notaries Ordinance merely because the offence is punishable with a
fine of- two hundrejl rupees,
i 28 N. L. R. 212.
* 30 N. L. R. 449.
240
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—de Silva v. Dalpatadu.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Panadure.
No appearance for the appellant.
Jansze, C.C., for the respondent.
January 16, 1942. Wijeyewardene J.—
The accused was charged with having failed to transmit to the Registrarof Lands before April 15, 1940, duplicates of deeds attested by him inMarch, 1940, in breach of rule 25 of section 30 of the Notaries Ordinance(Legislative Enactments,-Volume III., Chapter 91).
The Magistrate who is also a District Judge proceeded to try the caseunder section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and convicted theaccused.
The accused has appealed against the conviction and has raised interalia the following points of appeal: —
The offence is not triable by the Magistrate’s Court or the District
Court.
That the offence is not one which “ may properly be tried
summarily ” under section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code..
Section 30 of the Notaries Ordinance, which renders a person guilty of abreach of rule 25 liable to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200, does not mentionthe Court which should try such a person. Such a person could nottherefore be tried in a Magistrate’s Court in view of section 11 (b) of theCriminal Procedure Code but in the District Court or Supreme Court.The Magistrate was therefore right in holding that this was a case triableby a District^Court. Unfortunately, the only reason he has given fordeciding to try the case under section 152 (3) is “ that the punishment towhich the accused is liable is Rs. 200 If this is a good reason,' it wouldautomatically enable Magistrates to try persons charged with offencespunishable with a fine not exceeding Jls. 200, even if the case is of acomplicated nature. I am unable to accept the reason given by theMagistrate as a good reason.
This Court has held in a number of cases (vide Sheddon v. Ago Singho1and Silva v. Kelanitissa’) that a Magistrate should record his reasons for•forming the opinion that the offence may be tried by him under section 152
of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the opinion so recorded wassubject to review by this Court.
I am compelled to set aside the conviction and remit the case to theMagistrate, directing him to take non-summary proceedings against theaccused.
Set aside,
Case remitted.
1 14 C.L.R. 43
1 37 N. L. R. 68