006-NLR-NLR-V-54-KRISHNAN-Appellant-and-SITTAMPALAM-Authorised-Officer.Respondent.pdf
HOSE C.J.—jKrishnan v. Sittampalam
19
*■■■
1952Present : Rose C.J.
KRISHNAN, Appellant, and SITTAMPALAM (Authorised Officer),
Respondent
S. C. 401—M. C. Colombo Jt„ 42,043
Immigrants and Emigrants Act, No. 20 of 1948—Making false return—Offence undersection 45 (1) (c)—Sentence—Mitigating circumstances—A.pplicability ofCriminal Procedure Code, s. 325.
Appellant was charged with a breach of section 45 (1) (c) of the Immigrantsand Emigrants Act. In applying for a temporary residence permit he forwardedto the authority certain forged documents to prove that he was in residence inCeylon diming a certain period. There was, however, other evidence showingthat he was in fact in residence in Ceylon during the relevant time.
Held, that in the circumstances justice would be done if the appellant wasbound over under section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
At*:
peal from a judgment of the Joint Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
E. Chitty, for the accused appellant.
S. S. Wijesinha, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
August 7, 1952. Rose C.J.—
In this matter the appellant was charged with a breach of section 45
(c) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act, No. 20 of 1948. It appearsthat in applying for a temporary residence permit the appellant forwardedto the authority three receipts from the Municipal Treasurer’s Departmentin regard to certain stalls of which he was the licence holder. The learnedMagistrate has found, and I am not disposed to interfere with his finding,that those receipts were forged in that the relevant dates were altered. Itappears, however, from the evidence that the appellant was in fact alicence holder during the years in question and that he was in fact in resi-dence in Ceylon during the relevant time. Had he taken the trouble he couldtherefore have presumably acquired the necessary documents to supporthis position. Instead of doing that, very foolishly he decided to take theswifter course of forging the documents. That as I say is extremelyfoolish and from his own point of view even dangerous as a convictionunder this Ordinance has very serious consequences as far as Indians areconcerned. Having regard to the fact, however, that bis position wasin fact as stated or as purported to be proved by the forged documents, Ifeel that his offence was one more of folly than of fraud. In the circum-stances I think the penalties consequent upon a conviction are too seriousfor the facts of this case. I think justice will be done if the appellant isbound over under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code for a period•of six months in his own recognizance in a sum of Rs. 100.
20
SWAN J.—John v. Charles Silva
Learned Crown Counsel very rightly brings to my attention an authoritywhich would seem to indicate that this Court has no power to utilizesection 325—Abvis v. Fernando x. While attaching all weight to thisauthority, I feel that I should follow the consistent practice of this Courtover a number of years which has been in suitable cases to utilize this-section.
The conviction is set aside and the fine remitted.
Conviction set aside.