014-NLR-NLR-V-12-DIAS-v.-RAJAPAKSE.pdf
( 38 )
1909. Preae.nl : The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice.
February 2.
DIAS v. RAJAPAKSE.
/
P. C., Negonibo, 10,942.
Notary—Practising without obtaining certificate—Annual certificate,sufficiency of—Ordinance No. 2 of 1877, ss. 22 and 24.
A notary who obtains his certificate before March 1 in each year,that is, in each calendar year during which he acts as a notary,complies with the provisions of section 22 of Ordinance No. 2 of1877, and is not liable to the penalty enacted by section 24 of thesaid Ordinance.
A
PPEAL by the Attorney-General from an acquittal in aprosecution under section 24 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1877
(Notaries’ Ordinance).
Walter Pereira, K.C., S.-G., for the Crown.
M. de Saram, for the accused, respondent.
Cur. adv. vvlt.
February 2, 1909. Hutchinson C.J.—
This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against an acquittal.The charge against the respondent was that he acted as a notarywithout having previously obtained for the year 1907 the yearlycertificate required by section 22 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1877, andthat he thereby committed an offence under, section 24 of the Ordi-nance. He took out a certificate under the Ordinance on February
and another on February 27,1907. On February 25,1907,he attested a deed as notary ; and that is the offence with which bewas charged, the prosecution contending that a certificate comes intoforce on the day on which it is granted, and is in force only for one yearfrom that date, and that the certificate of 1906 expired on February
When he was called upon by the Registrar-General for anexplanation, he maintained that there was no irregularity, because
. the certificate granted in any year is in force until March 1 of thefollowing year. The Magistrate held that by taking out his certi-ficate in 1906 and 1907 before March 1, the respondent had compliedwith the requirements of the Ordinance. The Ordinance enacts(section 22) that it shall be the duty of every Secretary of a DistrictCourt in his district to grant to any person entitled to practise as a
, • notary in the district who shall apply for it a certificate that he is anotary, and duly authorized to practise as such in the district.“ All such certificates shall be applied for and granted on or beforeMarch 1 in every year, and shall be in force for one year and no
( 39 )
longer.” Provided that if a certificate is not applied for within the . 1909.time limited, and it is shown that the default was not due to the February Z.negligence of the notary, the certificate may be issued notwithstand- Hutohuisoning the delay. The certificate is to be in the form in the schedule to C.J.the Ordinance, and (section 24) if any person acts as a notary “ with-out having obtained such certificate as aforesaid,” he is liable to afine “ for every deed or instrument executed or acknowledged beforehim as suoh notary whilst he shall have been without such certificate.”
Every person, therefore, who has been appointed by the. Governorto practise as a notary has to take out a certificate on or beforeMarch 1 every year. The penalty in section 24 is for acting asa notary “without having obtained such certificate as_aforesaid.”
And in my opinion the ruling of the Magistrate was right, that anotary who obtains his certificate before March 1 in each year, thatis, in each calendar year during which he acts as a notary, has com-plied with the law, and is not liable to the penalty. If that opinionis correct, it is not necessary to trouble ourselves to try to discoverwhat the Legislature meant by saying that a certificate is to be inforce for one year and no longer ; but as that question was arguedbefore me, I will say that I think the word “ year ” in that connec-tion means the period from January 1 to December 31. “ Year ” isambiguous. It might mean the period from January 1 to December31, as it obviously does in the same sentence in the phrase “ beforeMarch 1 in every year.” Or it might mean, as the Solicitor-Generalcontends that it does, twelve calendar months from the date of thecertificate. Neither the form of the certificate nor anything elsein the Ordinance makes the matter quite clear. There is the sameambiguity in Ordinance No. 12 of 1848, which requires proctors totake out yearly certificates. There are other laws requiring yearlycertificates or licenses to be taken out, in which the dates of thecoming into force and expiration of the certificate or license areclearly defined ; for example, the yearly license required by section9 of Ordinance No. 12 of 1891 is to be in force from its date to June 30in the following year ; by the law in England a solicitor’s certificatemust be taken out before December 16, and relates back to and isdated November 16 ; and by the law in Ireland also the dates of itscommencement and expiration are clearly defined (29 and 30 Viet.
84, section 42). But it cannot be said that in the Ordinancewith which we are now dealing the Legislature has expressed itsintention plainly.
The Solicitor-General points out that if a certificate is to be inforce from January 1 to December 31 of the year in which it isgranted, there may be, and usually will be, an interval betweenJanuary 1 and the date of the certificate, and that certificate willthus cover a period before its date. But that does not seem to mea serious objection, since the same thing is expressly enacted in thecase of both English and Irish solicitors. On the other hand, as the
( 40 )
1909. Ordinance provides for the issue of certificates in certain cases afterFebruary & March 1 (and there is. evidence in this case of another NegomboHutchinson notary who took his certificate on June 12,1907), if the constructionC J' put on the Ordinance by the prosecution is right, a notary who gothis certificate on June 12, 1907, and then ip accordance with the.law got another in January or February, 1908, would have, untilJune 11,1908, two certificates in force at the same time. And if oneasks what was the object of enacting that all certificates must begranted on or before a certain date in each year, the most likelyanswer that occurs to me is that it was thought to be convenientthat all certificates should expire on the same date. In my opinionthe Magistrate dismissed this charge rightly and on the right ground,and I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.