009-NLR-NLR-V-77-M.-R.-L.-GUNASEKERA-et-al.-Petitioners-and-J.-WILLIAM-Inspector-of-Police-R.pdf
94
WEERAMANTRY, J.—Gunasekera w. William
1968Present: Weeramantry, J.
M.R. L. GUNASEKERA et al., Petitioners, and J. WILLIAM(Inspector of Police), Respondent
S. C. 17/68—Application for Revision in M. C. Gampaha, 14754/A
Criminal Procedure Code—Section 325—Conditional release thereunder—Distinction between a verdict of guilty and a finding that thecharge has been proved.
An offender can be conditionally released by a Magistrate interms of section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code only if thereis a finding that the charge against him has been proved and notif a verdict of guilty is entered.
APPLICATION to revise an order of the Magistrate’s Court,Gampaha.
Rodrigo, for the accused-petitioners.
Lalith Rodrigo, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
June 12, 1968. Weeramantry, J.—
The learned Magistrate in this case has found the threeaccused guilty of the charge laid against them, namely, a chargeof voluntarily causing hurt to one Lucian Wijetunga. Having sofound the three accused guilty, he has proceeded to deal withthem without proceeding to conviction by binding them over tobe of good behaviour for a period of one year, each entering intoa bond in a sum of Rs. 250.
Learned Counsel for the accused draws my attention to thejudgment in Ramasamy v. Sub-Inspector of Police, wherethe view has been expressed by this Court that thereis a distinction between a verdict of guilty and a finding thatthe charge has been proved. The appropriate order to be madein a case where the Judge proposes to deal with an accusedperson under section 325, would, according to this judgment, bethat the charge has been proved and not a finding that theaccused are guilty of the charge.
» (1964) 66 C. L. W. 70.
Dhanapala v. Baby Nona
95
I therefore delete the finding that the accused are guilty andsubstitute therefor a finding that the charge has been proved.
Mr. Rodrigo draws my attention to a number of contradictionsin the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submits thatin any event a finding against the accused on the facts cannotbe sustained. These are however matters of fact which areentirely within the discretion of the learned trial judge and Ido not think .1 should interfere in this case with the trial Judge’sfindings of fact.
There is however the circumstance pointed out by learnedCounsel that the 1st accused is at present a school boy andlikely to be affected adversely in his career by the order madeby the learned Magistrate. In regard to the 1st accused, Itherefore alter the order that has been made and delete therequirement that he should be bound over to be of goodbehaviour and substitute therefor, in terms of section 325 (1) (a!),the requirement that he be given such admonition as the learnedMagistrate may think fit. Subject to this the order of the learnedMagistrate will stand. The case will be called before the learnedMagistrate so as to enable him to administer the admonition interms of section 325 (1) (a).
Order varied.