080-NLR-NLR-V-55-K.-CYRIL-Appellant-and-DOLE-Inspector-of-Police-Respondent.pdf
288
SWAN J.—Cyril v. Dole (Inspector of Police)
1953Present: Swan J.
K. CYRIL, Appellant, and DOLE (Inspector of Police), Respondent
S. C. 942—M. C. Galle, 9,551
Postponement—Application therefor—Circumstances when it should be granted.
At the conclusion, of the case for the prosecution the Proctor who wasappearing for an accused person applied for a postponement stating thatit was well past the ordinary working hours of the court, that he had had aheavy day and that the defence would take at least two hours.
Held, that in the circumstances the application for postponement shouldhave been granted.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Galle.
G. E. CTiitty, with A. W. W. Goonewardene, for the 1st accusedappellant.
A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
December 9, 1953. Swan J.—
There were two accused in this case. Only the 1st accused hasappealed. Perhaps the 2nd accused is satisfied with the order that thelearned Magistrate has made. Mr. Chitty, appearing for the 1st accused,complains that at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution theProctor for the 1st accused applied for a date which the learnedMagistrate refused, although it was well past the ordinary workinghours of the court. Thereupon the Proctor for the 1st accused withdrewfrom the case and the accused was deprived of his services. I think therefusal of the Magistrate to grant the 1st accused’s Proctor a dateprejudiced the 1st accused. Ordinarily when there is co-operationbetween Bench and Bar an application fox a date is readily granted.In this particular case the Proctor for the 1st accused drew the attentionof the court to the fact that it was ten minutes to five and stated thatthe defence would take at least two hours and that he had had a heavyday and asked for the courtesy of a postponement which was curtlyrefused. In the circumstances I do not think there has, been a satisfactorytrial so. far as the 1st accused is concerned. I would therefore set asidethe conviction of the 1st accused and order the case to be tried beforeanother Magistrate who may or may not assume jurisdiction as DistrictJudge as he thinks fit.
Conviction set aside.