036-NLR-NLR-V-37-KING-v.-GUNERATNE-et-al.pdf
King v. Guneratne.
167
1935
Present: Macdonell C.J.
KING v. GUNERATNE et al.
42-42—D. C. (Crim.) Colombo, 10,637.
Appeal—Findings on fact—Duty of Court of Appeal—Three tests to be applied.
In an appeal from a judgment on questions of fact the Court ofAppeal will apply the following tests, viz. : —
Is the verdict of the Judge unreasonably against the weight of
evidence ?
Was there a misdirection either on the law or the evidence ?
Has there been wrong inference from matter in evidence which is
as much before the Court of Appeal as it was before the trialCourt ? 1
1 8 N. L. R. 2*3.
168
MACDONELL. C.J.—King v. Guneratne.
^^PPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Colombo.
Francis de Zoysa, K.C. (with him Sri Nissanka and Pandita Guna-wardene), for the first accused, appellant.
R. h. Pereira, K.C. (with him M. C. Abeyewardene), for the secondaccused, appellant.
J.E. M. Obeyesekere, Acting Deputy S.-G. (with him M. F. S. Pulle,C.C.), for Crown, respondent.
February 19, 1935. Macdonell C.J.—
In this case the two accused were found guilty by the District Judge ofColombo on the second count of the indictment the effect of which wasthat they represented that the girl Mabel, daughter of the first accused,was a major on February 25, 1929, and by that false representationinduced a certain Mr. Sivasubramaniam, a proctor, to advise his client aMr. Rajendram, to purchase a certain land in the Colombo District.They were also found guilty on the third count of the indictment offalsely representing to the same Mr. Sivasubramaniam that the secondaccused was a proctor for one Mrs. Scharenguivel, mortgagee of the land,and therefy inducing Mr. Sivasubramaniam to deliver to the secondaccused a cheque for Rs. 1,240.
The evidence has been analysed so completely on both sides—and I amvery grateful for that analysis in a somewhat complicated case—that it isunnecessary to go through it at length.
This is an appeal mainly on facts from a Court which saw and heard thewitnesses to a Court which has not seen or heard them, and in dealingwith this judgment I have to apply the three tests, as they seem to be,which a Court of Appeal must apply to an appeal coming to it on questionsof fact. Can we say that the verdict of the learned District Judge,namely, that these people are guilty, was unreasonably against the weightof the evidence adduced on both sides ? Clearly it is not possible to saythat. Can we say that there has been any misdirection either on the lawor on the evidence? Again I do not think it would be possible to say so.There was a point of law argued here that accused had no intention to‘ cause loss in the end I have considered that, and properly understood,
I do not think it is a misdirection in law at all. I do not remember anyother point that was seriously raised to this Court as a misdirection. Thenthere is the third ground of interference, that the Court of trial has drawnthe wrong inference from matter in evidence which is as much beforethis Court as it was before the Court of trial, for instance, documents.Again, I dp not think it can be said that there has been any such wronginference drawn by the Court of trial. On the contrary, the documentsput in seem, rightly apprehended, to support the findings of fact arrivedat by the learned District Judge.
I have read through all the evidence carefully because I wished tosatisfy myself that both the accused took part in these two separate falserepresentations which misled Mr. Sivasubramaniam and his client, andI am satisfied that there was ample evidence to convict them both.These appeals must therefore be dismissed.
Affirmed.