069-NLR-NLR-V-57-HEEN-APPU-et-al-Appellants-and-SALIH-Police-Sergeant-Respondent.pdf
1955Present : Swan, J.HEEX APPU el al., Appellants, and SALIH (PoliceSergeant), Respondent-
-S'. C. 710-714—M. C. Gampoln, 12,377'
Jlural Court—Exclusive jurisdiction—Village Tribunals Ordinance, JVo. 12 of 101-5,ss. 12, 13.
In a prosecution by a public officer in respect of an ofTeneb triable by aMagistrate's Court the accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offence which
(
was not included in the charge and which is exclusively triable by a RuralCourt.
A,
XjlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Gampola.Colvin 11. dc- Silva, with M. X. dc Silva, for the ac-cused-appcllants.
Shiva Pa-snpa/i, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 28, 1955. Swax, J.—'
The appellants were charged with (1) criminal trespass and (2) causinggrievous hurt to one A. Iv. V. Daniel. Both charges were framed againstthe accused on the basis that they had acted in furtherance of a commonintention. After trial they were acquitted on count- 1, and on count 2onl3r the 2nd accused-appellant was found guilty. He was convicted andsentenced to a term of six months’ rigorous imprisonment, and to pay afine of Rs. 75 in defaidt to serve a period of one month’s imprisonment.The 1st, 3rd, 4th and oth accuscd-appcllants were found guilty of simplehurt under section 314 of the Penal Code and fined Rs. 50 each.
Learned Counsel for the appellants did not press the aj>pcal of the 2ndaccused-appellant. I see no reason to interfere with Iris conviction orsentence. His appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentenceaffirmed.
As regards the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused-appellants it is submittedthat their conviction is bad because the learned Magistrate had no juris-diction to convict them of simple hurt inasmuch as a charge of simplehurt is exclusively triable by the Rural Court having jurisdiction over thearea in which the alleged offence was committed. The only exception iswhere a public officer prosecutes—vide section 12 of the Village TribunalsOrdinance Iso. 12 of 1945. But that does not ajiply in this case as theproceedings initiated by the public officer who prosecuted were in respectof offences triable by a Magistrate's Court. There is a case exactly in
point which is reported in 1 Ceylon Laic Journal Notes of Cases at page 4-1.That was decided under the old Ordinance No. 24 of 1924. -But the newOrdinance makes no change.
Immediately the Magistrate found that the 1st, 3rd, 4tli and othaccused-appellants had committed an offence which was exclusivelytriable by a Rural Court he should have stayed proceedings andreferred the parties to the Rural Court having jurisdiction os providedby section 13.
I quash the conviction of the 1st. 3rd, 4th and 5th accused-appellants.
Appeal of :lnd accused dismissed.
Convictions of the- other accused quashed.