M. M. A. DHARMATUNGA et al., Appellants, and SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PADDAWEL

079-NLR-NLR-V-55-M.-M.-A.-DHARMATUNGA-et-al.-Appellants-and-SUB-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-PADDAWEL.pdf

GUNASEKARA J.—Dharmatunga v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Paddawela
287
Present: Gunasekara J.
M. M. A. DHARMATUNGA et al., Appellants, andSUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PADDAWELA,Respondent
S. C. 591-593—M. C. Gampaha, 56,429
Criminal Procedure—Joinder of accused and charges—Same transaction—Noaverment of it in plaint or charge—Irregularity.
Several accused persons were jointly tried in. respect of several offences-There was no allegation either in the report filed in terms of section 148 (1) (6)of the C-iminal Procedure Code or in the charge framed by the Magistrate thatthe offences with which the accused were severally charged were committed inthe same transaction.
Held, that the accused could not have been jointly tried.
ApPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Gampaha.
H. V. Perera, Q.O., with Christie Fernando, for the accused appellants.J. G. T. Weeraratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
June 25, 1952. Gukasesaea J.—
There is no allegation either in the report filed in terms of section148 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code or in the charge framed by theMagistrate that the offences with which the accused are severally chargedwere committed in the same transaction. Crown Counsel very properlyagrees that in these circumstances the accused could not he tried jointly..
In view of the misjoinder I quash the fconviction of the accused. Itwill of course be open to the Police to institute fresh proceedings if theyare so advised.
Conviction quashed.