069-NLR-NLR-V-23-GATEKEEPER,-C.-G.-R.-v.-ELARIS-et-al.pdf
( 265 )
4
Present: Bertram C.J.
GATEKEEPER, a a. R., c* ELARIS et al.23—P. C. AvissatoeUa, 1,454.
Prosecution instituted by a public officer on behalf of the Bailway Depart-ment—Jurisdiction of Police Court and Village Tribunal—Native.
When a publio officer makes a report to Court on behalf of aGovernment Department or of the Crown itself, lie must be con-sidered as acting either on behalf of his department or on behalf ofthe Crown, and not to be vested with any particular racialcharacter, which would affect the jurisdiction of the Village Tribunal*
r j ^HE facts appear from the judgment.
Jansz, C.C., for the Crown, appellant.
January 90,1922. Bertram C.J.—
This was a prosecution instituted under section 148 (6) of theCriminal Procedure Code by a public officer on behalf of the RailwayDepartment. The public officer was, in fact, a “ native/’ within themeaning of the Village Communities Ordinance; and the questionwas whether this circumstance gave jurisdiction to the VillageTribunal, on the ground that both the prosecutor and the personprosecuted, that is to say, both parties to the suit, were “natives.”It is not necessary in this case to give a considered decision’ on thequestion reserved by the Full Court in Sedris v. Singho.1 But. it is clear, at any rate, that when a public officer makes a reportto Court on behalf of a Government Department or of the Crownitself, he must be considered as acting either on behalf of his depart-ment or on behalf of the Crown,’ and not to be vested with anyparticular racial character, which would affect the jurisdiction of theVillage Tribunal. This decision follows that of Shaw J. in Simon v.Siyatu.2 I, therefore, allow the appeal, and remit the case forhearing by the Police Magistrate.
Sent bade.
♦
1 (mi) 23 N. L. B. 111.* (1917) 4 C. W. B. 426.
1922.