063-NLR-NLR-V-47-GNANANDA-THERO-Appellant-and-VILLAGE-HEADMAN-OF-MADAKOTUWA-Respondent.pdf
188
Onananda The.ro v. V. R. oj Madakotutcsa.
1946Present: Soertsz, S.P.J.
GNANANDA THERO, Appellant, and VILLAGE HEADMANOF MADAKQTUWA, Respondent.
32—M. C. Oampaha, 29,501.
Requisitioning order—Competent authority—His power to delegate authority—Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulation 37 (1).
The responsibility entrusted to the competent authority underregulation 37 (1) of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations cannot bedelegated by him to a subordinate officer.
A
PPEAL from a conviction from the Magistrate's Court, Gampaha.
The accused was charged with having failed to deliver to the
headman paddy requisitioned by the Assistant Government Agent,in contravention of an order of requisitioning made under regulation 37 (1)of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations. It transpired in evidencethat the competent authority (the Assistant Government Agent) hadissued a blank Requisition Form, signed by him, to a subordinate officerand that the particulars in the Form were subsequently filled in bythe subordinate officer.
A. Rajapakse, K.C. (with him M. M. K. Stlbramaniam), for theaccused, appellant.
J.O. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
SOERTSZ S.P.J.—Gnananda There V. V. H. of Madakolutoa.
189
March 29, 1946. Soertsz S.P.J.—
I do not think that this conviction can stand. It was quite irregularfor the competent authority to have issued PI in blank to Perera and sohave left it to him to fill in the quantity liable to be requisitioned. ThatLs a responsibility entrusted to the competent authority and not the sortof responsibility that could be delegated by him to a subordinate. It isadmitted that, in this instance, the figures were written by Perera.On the facts too I prefer the version of the appellant.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant.
Appeal allowed.