023-NLR-NLR-V-62-LAMANATISSA-DE-SILVA-Appellant-and-S.-I.-POLICE-MATARA-Respondent.pdf
92
BAS2SJAYAILE, C.J.—Lamanatissa de Silva v. S- I. Police, Motor a
Present : Basnayake, C.J.
LAMANATISSA DE SILVA, Appellant, and S. I. POLICE, MATAEA,
Respondent
S. G. 712—M. G. Matara, 55987
Criminal procedure—Accused produced before M agistrate by Police—Framing of charge—Necessity to record evidence previously—Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 148(2) (6), 148{1) (d), 151 (2).
The procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code in section 151 (2)is confined to proceedings instituted under section 148 (1) (d) and need not befollowed in a case in which the accused is produced by the Police before theMagistrate in proceedings instituted under section 148 (1) (6). Accordingly,in the latter case, evidence need not be taken in terms of section 151 (2) beforethe charge is framed against the accused.
A
Ij-PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Matara.
J. Fernando, for Accused-Appellant.
K.M. M. B. Kulatunga, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
March 14, 1960. Basnayake, C.J.—
It is submitted by-counsel for the appellant that on the authority ofthe case of Tikiri Banda v. T. Perimpanayagam 1 the failure of theMagistrate to examine the person who brought the accused before thecourt and a person able to speak to the facts of the case before the chargewas framed against the accused is fatal to the conviction. It wouldappear that proceedings in the instant case were instituted under section148(1) (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The procedure indicated insection 151(2) need be followed only in a case in which proceedings areinstituted under paragraph (d) of section 148(1).- Not only was a -writtenreport under section 148(1) (5) made but the accused was also producedby the Police. That circumstance does not convert proceedings in-stituted under section 148(1) (5) to proceedings instituted under section148(1) (d). The procedure prescribed in section 151(2) is confined toproceedings instituted under section 148(1) (d).
The objection taken by learned counsel does not lie in the instant caseand the case cited by him has no application to it. I see no reason tointerfere with the conviction on the facts.
The appeal is dismissed. 1
Appeal dismissed.
1 {1959) 61 N. L. R. 286.