051-NLR-NLR-V-25-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-v.-ELARIS-APPU.pdf
( 215 )
Present: De Sampayo A.C.J.
INSPECTOR OP POLICE v. ELARIS APPU.
305—P. C. Negombo, 45,592.
Ordinance No. 32 of 1914—Accused discharged from jail on a license oncondition that he should report to police change of residence—Goingfrom house to visit his son who was in another district.
Accused who was a convicted prisoner and who was dischargedfrom jail on a written license on-condition inter alia that he shouldnotify to the police any change of residence, went from his residencein Negombo to Chil&w to see his son who was ill.
Held, that accused had not changed his residence.
No appearance for the appellant.
June 7,1923. De Sampayo A.C.J.—
I do not think that the order of the Police Magistrate can besupported. The accused-appellant had been-a convicted prisonerand had been discharged on a written license. One of the conditionsunder which he was discharged from jail was that he should notifyto the police any change of his residence. After his discharge hetook up his residence at some village in the Negombo Distriot. Thepresent charge against him is that in violation of that conditionhe changed his residence from Negombo and went to some placein Chilaw. He seems to have done this on March 10 last. Theevidence is that given by the Inspector of Police of Negombo.He said that the accused left on March 10 for an estate calledMaiahena in the Chilaw District. There was no other evidenceon behalf of the prosecution* The accused explained that he didnot change his residence, but that'he only went to Chilaw to seehis son who was sick at the time. The Magistrate, however,thought that even such a visit was a change of residence withinthe meaning of the license. He observed that the expression*u change of residence ” was not defined in the Ordinance No. 32 of1914, under which the provision is made for the discharge of aprisoner on a license. But he referred to certain rules made underthe Ordinance which are said to refer to the “ procedure to beadopted when a habitual changes his residence (1) temporarily, (2)for some length of time,” and he thought that these rules threw alight on the meaning of “ change of residence,” and that eventemporary residence was a “ change of residence ” in the senserequired. I do not think that the Police Magistrate is here right.Both under the condition of the license and under the rules referred
1923.
( 216 )
1928.
Dn SampayoA.C.J.
Inspector ofPolice v.Blaria Appu
to by the Magistrate, there must be a change of residence, whethertemporary or permanent. But a person going from his house tovisit a sick person elsewhere does not change his residence withinthe meaning of this expression. I think, therefore, that the conviotion of the aocused is not justified.
The conviction is set aside.
Set aside.
♦