097-NLR-NLR-V-64-H.-M.-SIYATHU-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-WELIMADA-Respondent.pdf
528 SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.—Siyathu v. Inspector of Police, IVelimada
1962Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.
H. M. SIYATHU, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
WELIMADA, Respondent
S.C. S24J62—M. G. Badulla, 34353
Criminal Procedure Code—Section 152 (3)—Scope—Penal Code, as. 316, 317.
Where the words “ District Court ” as well as “ Magistrate’s Court ” in respectof an offence appear in column 8 of the first Schedule of the Criminal ProcedureCode, a Magistrate, who is also a District Judge, is not entitled to assumejurisdiction under section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in order toinflict a punishment in excess of what a Magistrate can lawfully impose.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Badulla.
No appearance for Accused-Appellant.
G. P. S. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
November 28, 1962. Sri Skanda Rajah, J.—
The appellant is not represented. I find that the Magistrate, who isalso a District Judge, purported to assume jurisdiction under Section- 152(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the Magistrate had carefullyreferred to the first schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code he wouldhave found that the charge of grievous hurt, namely under Section 316,is triable by the Magistrate’s Court. That is, it is a summary charge.I can understand if he had assumed jurisdiction if it was a charge underSection 317. When in column 8 of the first schedule the words “ DistrictCourt ” and “ Magistrate’s Court ” appear they do not empower theMagistrate to assume jurisdiction under Section 152(3). The charge isone triable by the Magistrate, qua Magistrate, as in this case.
He cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 152(3) in order to inflicta punishment in excess of the jurisdiction the Magistrate has. Therefore,I affirm the conviction under Section 316 and sentence him to six months’rigorous imprisonment which the Magistrate could lawfully have imposed.
Sentence reduced.