006-NLR-NLR-V-39-KANDANA-POLICE-v.-EDMUND.pdf
16
Edmund v. Kandana Police.
1936
Present: Fernando A.J.
KANDANA POLICE v. EDMUND526—P. C. Gampaha, 39,823.
Charge—Driving a motor car recklessly or in a dangerous manner—Convicted ofdriving negligently—Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, s. 57 (2)and (2).
Where a person is charged with driving a motor car recklessly or in adangerous manner, under section 57 (2) of the Motor Car Oidinance,he may be convicted of driving negligently under section 57 (3) of theOrdinance.
' 31.N. L. B. 473.
L. B. (1924) 1 K. B. 2S6.
IT
Gitnasekere v. Dias Bandaranaike.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Gampaha.
de Jong, for accused, appellant.
September 22, 1936. Fernando A.J.—
The facts in this case present no difficulty. I see no reason to disagreewith the finding of the learned Police Magistrate who accepted theevidence of Mr. Kalpage and his driver. Their evidence establishes thefact that the accused reversed his bus in a crowded road without givingany signal or warning beforehand.
Counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Magistrate waswrong in amending the charge against the accused from one undersection 57 (2) of the Ordinance to a charge under section 57 (3). Section57 (2) refers to a person driving a motor car recklessly or in a dangerousmanner or at a dangerous speed, and section 57 (3) refers to a persondriving a motor car negligently. The accused was charged under section57 (2), but in his judgment the learned 'Magistrate convicted him of anoffence under section 57 (3).
Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code enables a person to beconvicted in a case where he is charged with one offence and it appears inevidence that he committed a different offence for which he might havebeen charged under the provisions of section 181. Section 183 providesthat where a person is charged with an offence consisting of severalparticulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a: completeminor offence, and such combination is proved but the remainingparticulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offencethough he was not charged with it.
It seems to me that in this case the accused was charged with reckless ordangerous driving which is a major offence within the meaning of section183 in as much as other particulars would be necessary to. constitute thatoffence beyond mere negligence, whereas negligence alone would hesufficient to constitute ah offence under section 57 (3). • On the evidencerecorded by the Magistrate it is clear to my mind that the accused didcommit an offence under section 57 (3) of the Ordinance. I, therefore,affirm the conviction and sentence, and dismiss the appeal.
Affirmed.