057-NLR-NLR-V-72-K.-JAYARATNE-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-MAHARAGAMA-Respondent.pdf
272
Jayaratne v. Inspector of Police, Maharcigama
1969Present: Sirimane, J.
Iv. JAYARATNE, Appellant., and INSPECTOR OP POLICE,MAH AR-AG AM A, Respondent. ''S. C. 1074J6S—M. C. Colombo South, 92647/B
Criminal Procedure Code—Section Jo2 (-1)—Assumption of jurisdiction thereunder—
Sentence—Quantum.
Where a Magistrate who is also a .District Judge assumes jurisdiction undersection 152 (13) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of trying n chargewhich is triable bj’ a District Court ns well ns by n Magistrate's Court, he has nopower to impose a sentence exceeding that which a Magistrate’s Court can -impose. ,
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo South.
Colvin 11. tie Silva with 1. S. de Silva and S. S: Wijeyeratne, for theaccused-appellant.
Tyrone Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
273
SIRIMANE, J.— Jayaratne v. Inspector oj Police, UuhtiragamaMay 27, 19G9. Sijumane, J.—
The appellant has been convicted on live counts. On the first counthe has been convicted of putting a woman in fear in order to commitextortion under Section 374 of the Penal Code. On the 2nd count he hasbeen convicted of attempting to commit extortion under Section 373/490.On the 3rd and 4th counts he has been convicted of causing simple hurtunder Section 314 and on the 5th count of committing mischief underSection 410.
L see no reason to interfere with the convictions which are amplysupported by the evidence.
In regard to the sentence however, it was pointed out that the learnedMagistrate has imposed a sentence of 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment onthe 1st count. This is a charge which is triable by a District Court as wellas by a Magistrate’s Court. The learned Magistrate assumed jurisdictionunder Section 152 (3) of the Criminal-Procedure Code_apparently for thepurpose of tlying the charge under Section 373/490. ' Section 152 (3)erajjowers a Magistrate who is also a District Judge to impose a sentencewhich a District Court may impose where the offence appears to be onetriable by a District Court and not summarily by a Magistrate. Inregard to the conviction under Section 374, therefore, the Magistrate hadpower only to impose a sentence of 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment.
I reduce the sentence jmssed on the 1st count to 6 months’ rigorousimprisonment. The other sentences will stand. In the result theappellant will serve 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment. Subject to thisvariation, the appeal is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.