026-SLLR-SLLR-1996-1-MERCANTILE-CREDIT-LIMITED-V.-SIRIMAWATHIE-AND-OTHERS.pdf
346
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
MERCANTILE CREDIT LIMITEDV.
SIRIMAWATHIE AND OTHERS
COURT OF APPEAL.
SENANAYAKE, J.
C.A. APPLICATION NO. 626/86.
M.C. GAMPAHA CASE NOS. 23418/ B & 24984 /A.
14 NOVEMBER, 1995.
Hire purchase contract- Court order for sale – Breach of section 431 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure Act- Code of Criminal Procedure Act, section29. – Judicial Sale under Sale of Goods Act, section 22(b) – Sale in marketovert- Purchase in good faith without notice of any defect in title.
The Petitioner a duly incorporated Company was engaged inter alia in thebusiness of Hire Purchase Contracts. The Petitioner had on 20.04.84 enteredinto a Hire Purchase contract in respect of Isuzu Elf Diesel Motor Lorry No.40 Sri 893 of which it was the owner with the 3rd Respondent. The 3rdRespondent defaulted in payment of the hiring rentals and the Petitionertherefore terminated the hiring on 22.10.84 and demanded the return of thevehicle. On 20 May, 1985 the petitioner instituted action in the District Courtof Colombo against the 3rd Respondent as hirer and the Guarantors.
On 12.11.1985 the O.I.C Ragama Police Station produced lorry No. 40 Sri893 before the Magistrate's Court of Gampaha with an 'A' report that no oneclaimed to be the owner. On 15.11.85 the Magistrate made order that thevehicle be included in the next auction sale. Accordingly the said vehiclewas sold by public auction on 21.12.85 (in the presence of the Court officialsand Ministry of Justice officials), after the sale had been gazetted in theGovernment Gazette of 15.12.85. The 1st Respondent bought the lorry atthe auction sale of 21.12.85 . The Magistrate apparently without anyapplication therefor, caused the Registrar of his Court to send a letter, dated16.04.86 to the O.I.C. Peliyagoda Police Station to deliver possession of thesaid vehicle to the 1st Respondent.
In the meantime on 12.04.86 a representative of the Petitioner beingunaware of the said public auction took possession of the said vehicle.Thereafter on 27.4.86 the Registrar of the Magistrate's Court of Gampahawrote to the O.I.C Sapugaskanda informing that 40 Sri 893 was confiscatedand sold by public auction but the vehicle had been forcibly removed fromthe lawful owner by Mercantile Credit Ltd., and the police should take stepsto take the vehicle into custody and produce it to Court. The Sapugaskanda
CA
Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others
347
Police took possession of the lorry and reported to Court that the 2ndRespondent had purchased the lorry from 1st Respondent and requestedCourt to hand the lorry over to the 2nd Respondent. The vehicle waseventually handed over to the 2nd Respondent on an order of Court of02.05.86.
The Petitioner moved the Court of Appeal in revision and the Court madeorder staying action on the order of 02.5.86.
Held:
The number plates of the lorry were available and the Court or the O.I.C.Ragama could have found out who the registered owner of the vehicle was.
The conduct of the O.I.C. Ragama was fraudulent in that he deliberatelymisled the Magistrate by filing the 'A' report which led the Magistrate toinclude the lorry in the public auction.
The indecent haste in including the vehicle for sale and the sale for apaltry sum of Rs. 31,000/- disclose a covert manoeuvre by a judicial officerwith deliberate assistance by a corrupt Police Officer- in- Charge of a PoliceStation.
The Magistrate acted in contravention of the provisions of section 431 (2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his action is tainted and does notappear to be a bona fide mistake when one considers his subsequentconduct in sending directions to O.I.C. Peliyagoda and O.I.C Sapugaskanda(in regard to handing over possession of the vehicle).
The vehicle was not a property taken in terms of section 29 (b) (of theCode of Criminal Procedure Act) as there was no reason to believe that thevehicle (and its contents) were the instruments or the fruits or evidence ofcrime.
If the legal owner was not known the Magistrate should have acted interms of section 431(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, and, as thearticles were not perishables, he could have detained them and publisheda notification in the court notice board and two public places to be decidedon by him specifying the articles of which such property consists andrequiring any person who may have a claim to come before him and establishhis claim within six months from the date of such publication. Under sub-section (3) the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may publish this notification atleast once in newspapers in Sinhala, Tamil and English where the value ofthe property is Rs.2,500/- or more. Non-compliance with the section 431 (2)
348
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
was fatal and the order of 15.11.85 to sell the vehicle was null and void andall subsequent acts flowing from that order are of no force or avail in law.The order of 2.5.86 was also a nullity.
The principle that a judicial sale gives good title and section 22(b) of theSale of Goods Ordinance also confers validity on a contract of sale heldunder any statutory power of sale or under the order of a Court of competentjurisdiction are of no avail because the judicial sale was a nullity. Furtherthe principle that where goods are sold in market overt, the buyer acquiresgood title provided he buys in good faith without notice of any defect or wantof title on the part of the seller does not apply. The buyer in market overt isonly protected if the entire transaction takes place in the market itself betweenthe hours of sunrise and sunset; and if stolen goods which are sold in themarket overt come back into the hands of the thief he cannot rely on the titleacquired in market overt by his predecessor.
There are exceptional circumstances which amount to a breach of theprinciples of natural justice and to a fundamental miscarriage of justice andthis is a fit case for the exercise of the Court’s revisionary powers.
Cases referred to:
Ferreria v. Haniffa 15 N.L.R. 445.
Mohammed Bhoy v. Lebbe Marikar 15 NLR. 466.
Manomari v. Velupillai 50 N.L.R. 289.
Nilabdeen v.Farook [1984]1 Sri L.R. 14.
APPLICATION in revision seeking setting aside of the orders of theMagistrate of Gampaha.
Chula de Silva, P.C. with Mrs. D. Wimaladharma for Petitioner.R.K.W.Goonesekera for 1st Respondent.
D.S.Wijesinghe, PC.with Ms. D. Dharmadasa for 2nd Respondent.
D. Jayakody, S.C. for 4th Respondent.
No appearance for 3rd Respondent.
Cur.adv.vult.
February 23, 1996.
W. SENANAYAKE, J.
The Petitioner filed this application to revise the impugned orders
CA Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others (Senanayake, J.)349
dated 15.11.85,02.05.86 and 06.05.86 made by the Learned Magis-trate of Gampaha.
The relevant facts briefly are as follows:
The Petitioner was a duly incorporated Company engaged interalia in the business into Hire Purchase Contracts. At the relevanttime the Petitioner was the owner of Isuzu Elf Diesel Motor Lorry bear-ing No. 40 Sri 893. On 20.03.84 the Petitioner entered into a Hire Pur-chase agreement with the 3rd Respondent with respect to the saidvehicle and in pursuance of the said agreement as the 3rd Respond-ent failed to pay the hiring rentals, the Petitioner terminated the hiringof the said vehicle dated 22.10.84 and demanded the return of thevehicle. On the 20th May 1985 it instituted action in the District Courtof Colombo against 3rd Respondent as Hirer and the Guarantors.
The Officer in Charge of the Ragama Police Station on an 'A' Re-port had produced the said lorry at the Magistrate's Court, Gampahawith the contents found inside the said vehicle on 12.11.85. Accordingto the report marked 'P5', on 21.09.85 the Sub-Inspector Seneviratnehad received information that there was an Isuzu Lorry without numberplates parked at No.11, Kandana Road, Peralanda, Ragama and onquestioning the occupants of the nearby house they had informed himthat one Anton Fernando of Gulf Marketing Limited had parked thelorry and left; on further investigations he had found the number platesof the vehicle inside and various other grocery items and bill booksand on questioning he was informed that the lorry belongs to CentralFinance Company but on investigation was informed that they werenot the owners. Further the Officer-in-Charge, Anura Senanayake hadreported that as so far no one had claimed ownership of the vehiclehe was producing the said vehicle and the contents. On 15.11.85 thelearned Magistrate had made order that the vehicle be included to besold at the next auction and the said vehicle was sold on 21.12.85 bypublic auction after it was gazetted in the 15.12.85 Government Ga-zette.
The 'A' report marked *P5' was a false report as John AnthonyFernando had informed the Police and made a statement to the RagamaPolice on 23.09.85 where he had claimed the said vehicle as shown by
350
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
the statement ’P6'.The statement made by K.J.T. Anthony of 11 KandanaRoad, Ragama marked 'P7 ' on 23.09.95 from whose premises thevehicle was taken in to custody by the police and who had categori-cally stated that his friend Anthony Fernando had towed the said vehi-cle on 20.08.85 and had left it there; however he was not aware of thecontents in the lorry. The statements 'P6' and 'P7‘ dated 23.09.95 re-spectively establish the fraudulent conduct of Anura Senanayake O.I.C.Ragama, when he deliberately misled the learned Magistrate by filingthe 'A' Report which led to the learned Magistrate to take steps toauction the said vehicle on 21.12.85. I do not understand why thelearned Magistrate acted so precipitately without following the explicitprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner's positionwas that the said order is a nullity and made without jurisdiction andcontrary to the principles of natural justice.
On 12.04.86 a Representative of the Petitioner being unaware ofthe said public auction took possession the said vehicle. The saidvehicle had been purchased at the public auction by 1st Respondent.The learned Magistrate caused the Registrar of the said Court to senda letter dated 16.04.86 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Peliyagoda Po-lice Station to deliver possession of the said vehicle to the 1st Re-spondent, by letter dated 16.04.86. This appears to have been sentwithout any application made to the Magistrate's Court.The order ap-parently had been made without any motion.The Representative of thePetitioner had made a statement 'P14', as a result the order of thelearned Magistrate was not complied with by the Peliyagoda Police.
Thereafter by letter dated 27.4.86 marked 'P15‘ the Registrar ofthe Magistrate's Court of Gampaha wrote to the O.I.C., Sapugaskanda,informing him that 40 Sri 893 was confiscated and sold by public auc-tion. The Court was informed that the said vehicle had been forciblyremoved from the lawful owner by Mercantile Credit Ltd., and the po-lice should take steps to take the vehicle into custody and produce itin Court. In pursuance of the said directive 'P15', the SapugaskandaPolice removed the said vehicle after forcibly entering the said premisesof the Petitioner accompanied by 1st Respondent's brother. On thenext day the Sapugaskanda Police made a report to the Magistrate'sCourt of Gampaha in Case No:23418/B, marked ’P19' where the O.I.C.,Sapugaskanda had reported to Court that on a complaint made by
CA Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others (Senanayake, J.)351
Ajith Premaratne on 12.04.86 of the robbery of the Vehicle No. 40 Sri893 worth Rs.31,000/- for non-payment of finance, on investigation itwas found that the present owner of the vehicle was SarathchandraHewapathirana, 2nd Respondent, who had purchased from the 1st Re-spondent who had purchased from a public auction at the GampahaCourts and requested the Court to hand over the vehicle to the 2ndRespondent and to issue notice on the Petitioner; and asked for fur-ther time to make further investigation and take the suspects to cus-tody. According to Journal Entry of 29.04.86 the-vehicle was producedin Court and an order was made by the acting Magistrate to call thecase on 06.05.86 and notice the Manager of the Petitioner Company.
On 02.05.86 a motion was filed by Attorney-at-Law, HerbertEkanayake and the matter was called and Attorney-at-Law, Mr.Dunstande Alwis had submitted that the said vehicle was sold on the orders ofCourt after due publication in the Government Gazette and as therewas no claimant and the 1st Respondent was the purchaser at thepublic auction who had subsequently sold the vehicle to the 2nd Re-spondent and as stated by the police in their report the vehicle behanded to the 2nd Respondent. The Acting Magistrate had directedthe police to hand over the said vehicle to the 2nd Respondent. Thoughsubsequently an inquiry was held, the Acting Magistrate confirmed theorder made on 02.05.86 allowing the 2nd Respondent to retain posses-sion of the vehicle.
The Petitioner filed the said application in this Court on 05.06.86and supported it on 09.06.86 and obtained stay of proceeding in termsof paragraph (e) of the prayer of the petition staying the operation ofthe order of the Magistrate's Court dated 02.05.86 and the Registrarwas to communicate this order to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. It isa pity to note that it had taken nearly 9 years to reach finality in theCourt of Appeal. This establishes the pace of disposal of the cases. Iwould be failing in my duty if I fail to point out that the said delayamounts to denial of justice. R.M. Jackson in his book "The Machin-ery of Justice" has stated that most of the worst factors of our legalsystem cannot be cured by legislation for they come from the habitsof mind and ways of the legal profession and the judiciary". In my viewa strong judicial commitment is essential for reducing the delay. It istime that we should examine our conscience and ask ourselves, havewe fulfilled our obligations?
352
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
On 23.06.86 the 2nd Respondent was present in the Court of Ap-peal and represented by his Counsel K.Balapatabendi and had givenan undertaking to see that the vehicle is not disposed of to any otherparty as well as not to remove any parts of the vehicle until the inquiryis completed regarding the custody of the vehicle.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was twofold: that the judicial sale was a nullity and it was in contravention ofsection 431 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The Counselsubmitted the said vehicle was not a property taken in terms of theprovisions of section 29(b) as articles which there was reason to be-lieve were the instruments or the fruits of evidence of crime. Therewas a legal duty and obligation on the learned Magistrate to complywith the mandatory section 431 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Section 431 (2) reads as follows if such person is unknown the Magis-trate may detain it and shall in such case publish a ratification in theCourt notice board and two other public places to be decided on by theMagistrate specifying the articles of which such property consists andrequiring any person who may have a claim there to come before himand establish his claim within six months from the date of such publicnotification.
Sub-section (3) envisages such notification may also, if the Mag-istrate thinks fit, be published at least once in newspapers in Sinhala,Tamil and English if the value of the property amounts to two thousandfive hundred rupees or more. I
I cannot understand as to what the indecent haste was for thelearned Magistrate to act so precipitately without following the explicitprovisions of the Statute. The Registration number of the vehicle wasstated in the 'A* report submitted to Court. In those circumstances theMagistrate had a duty cast on him as a judicial officer to call for afurther report and instruct the O.I.C., Ragama to check with the Regis-trar of MotorVehicles as to who was the Registered owner of the vehi-cle No.40 Sri 893, Isuzu Elf Diesel Motor Lorry. The indecent haste ofincluding the vehicle to be sold at the next auction and gazetted on15.12.85 within one month of production and selling the said vehiclefor Rs.31,000/- a paltry sum on 21.12.85 in my view, disclose a covertmanoeuvre by a judicial officer with deliberate assistance by a corrupt
CA Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others (Senanayake, J.)353
Police Officer-in-Charge of a station. This is clearly established by thedocuments 'P6' and 'P7‘ that there was a claimant to the said vehicle.The Officer-in-Charge of the Ragama Police Station at the relevanttime had deliberately suppressed the relevant material which he wasin possession of at the time he submitted the 'A' report to the Magis-trate's Court dated 12.11.85.
The said vehicle was not a perishable item and there was no ne-cessity to act in contravention of the provisions of section 431(2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure.The Judicial officer's action is taintedand does not appear to be a bona fide mistake when one considersthe subsequent conduct of the said Judicial officer in sending direc-tions to the O.I.C., Peliyagoda and O.I.C., Sapugaskanda.
The learned Counsel submitted that the judicial sale was a nullity.The learned Counsel relied on the authority Ferreria v. Haniffa.(1) Itwas a case where the sale of all the real property of an insolvent hadto take place under conditions determined by the majority of the credi-tors present at any meeting. Where no meeting of creditors was heldand the assignee refused to sell, the Court took the matter into its ownhands and ordered the Secretary to put the property for sale. Lascelles,C.J. held that the order was on the face of it beyond the jurisdiction ofthe Court. These facts have no relevance to the instant case.
He also relied on Mohammed Bhoy v. Lebbe Marikar;<2> where theCourt held that the interest of a fide! commissarius cannot be sold inexecution during the lifetime of the fiduciarius as it is a contingentinterest within the meaning of section 218 (k) of the Civil ProcedureCode. I am of the view that the facts of the said case have no rel-evance to the instant case.
He also relied on the authority of Manomari vVelupillai,<3) where adecree against a Defendant on whom summons has not been servedis void and no rights can pass to a purchaser at an execution saleunder such decree even if such purchaser was bona fide and withoutnotice. In my view the facts have no bearing to the instant case.
The 1st Respondent admitted that the said vehicle was purchasedon 21.12.85 in her name by her brother at an auction sale held at
354
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
Gampaha Magistrate's Court premises for the purpose of resale andher brother had attended to the repairs, sold the vehicle to the 2ndRespondent, but for some reason she does not disclose the date ofthe said transfer of the vehicle or the price that she received for thesaid vehicle. The 1st Respondent averred that by virtue of the Courtsale she became the lawful owner and the orders made by the Magis-trate and the Acting Magistrate were lawful and within jurisdiction andmoved the action be dismissed.
The 2nd Respondent in his statement admits that he purchasedthis lorry on 10.01.86 from the 1st Respondent; that negotiations weredone with the 1 st Respondent's brother Dharmadasa introduced to himby one Keerthi Dissanayake and that he paid a sum of Rs.125,000/-.He relied on the original cash receipt issued by the Registrar, Magis-trate's Court dated 21.12.85 and received subsequently, the photo-copy of a letter dated 24.03.86 issued by the Registrar, Magistrate'sCourt, Gampaha to the Commissioner of Motor Traffic requesting toregister the said lorry in the name of the 1 st Respondent. At the timehe purchased, he was not in possession of transfer papers pertainingto the vehicle. He purchased the said lorry bona fide and at the prevail-ing market value and he moved that the application be dismissed.
The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the 1stRespondent was a purchaser of the said vehicle at the public auctioncarried out at the Magistrate's Court premises in the presence of twoofficers of the Ministry of Justice. Therefore he submitted that sincethe 1st Respondent was a bona fide purchaser she was entitled totransfer or sell the said vehicle to the 2nd Respondent and the Peti-tioner had failed to claim the said vehicle when it was gazetted thatthe said vehicle would be auctioned on 21.12.85.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that hewas a bona fide purchaser of the said vehicle from the 1 st Respondentand he had paid a sum of Rs.125,000/- to the 1st Respondent andobtained possession of the vehicle. He was informed by the 1st Re-spondent’s brother who negotiated the sale of the 1 st Respondent withthe help of one Keerthi Dissanayake that the said vehicle was pur-chased at the public auction held in the Magistrate's Court of Gampaha.He was unaware that the Petitioner had title to this vehicle.The learned
CA Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others (Senanayake, J.)355
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied on the authority of NilabdeenvFarook,{A) where he submitted that the remedy available to the Peti-tioner was to institute a civil action in a Civil Court. It was held in thesaid case an order regarding possession made in a criminal proceed-ings does not operate as res judicata in respect of the question of titlearising in a civil action. His submission was the application of thePetitioner was misconceived in Law.
In the case of a registered motor vehicle unlike any other articlethe registered owner of the vehicle could be traced without any diffi-culty by the police or by the Magistrate of the Court from the Commis-sioner of Motor Traffic. Section 2(1) of the Motor Traffic Act, in explicitterms states no person shall possess or use a motor vehicle unlessthat vehicle is registered and the person for the time being entitled tothe possession of the vehicle is registered as the owner thereof. Bystatute it was necessary that a vehicle should be registered and thedistinctive registered number obtained before the motor vehicle couldbe used on the high way.
In the instant case the 'A' report submitted by the O.I.C., Ragamaon 12.11.85 mentioned the make of the lorry and the distinctive regis-tered No. 40 Sri 893. The learned Magistrate had made an order toauction the said vehicle. He had made an order to produce the con-tents of the lorry before the Health Officer to find out whether the arti-cles were fit for human consumption and there is a report dated 09.12.85by the M.O.H., Gampaha informing that he had inspected the articlesand found that the goods were not fit for human consumption.
The crucial question the Court has to inquire was whether the or-der made by the learned Magistrate on 15.11.85 was a valid order andwas it in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Crimi-nal Procedure.
Did the learned Magistrate and the O.I.C. of the Ragama Policemake any attempt to trace the registered owner of the said vehiclefrom the Commissioner of MotorTraffic?
Regarding the first question the 'A' report submitted by the O.I.C.,Ragama indicated that the registered owner was unknown. In terms of
356
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
section 431 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate maydetain the property and shall publish a notification in the Court noticeboard and two other public places to be decided on by the Magistratespecifying the articles and requiring any person who may have a claimthereto to come before him and establish his claim within six monthsfrom the date of such publication. The learned Magistrate had failed tocomply with the imperative section: a motor vehicle is not a perishableitem. In view of the value of the motor vehicle in terms of section 431
the Magistrate had a discretion at least to publish once in the Sinhala,Tamil and English newspapers. It is only after the lapse of six monthsfrom the date of such public notification, the Magistrate could act interms of section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where hecould make an order for sale. His failure to comply with the imperativesection makes his order dated 15.11.85 null and void as it is contraryto the provisions of section 431 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;as I stated earlier there was an indecent haste on the part of the judi-cial officer to order the sale of this vehicle even without taking therudimentary precaution of finding out from the Commissioner of MotorVehicles as to the registered owner of vehicle No. 40 Sri 893. The saidvehicle was produced before the Magistrate only on 15.11.85 accord-ing to the 'A' report dated 12.11.85 ; and the vehicle was gazetted inthe Government Gazette on 13.12.85 informing that the auction will beheld on the 21 st of December 1985. The vehicle was not in the custodyof the learned Magistrate for more than one month before he decidedto gazette in the Government Gazette including the said vehicle forsale. Non compliance of the section was fatal and his order was nulland void and all subsequent acts flowing from that order are of noforce or avail in law.
The learned Counsel for the 1 st Respondent submitted that it wasa judicial sale and he relied on the book "Introduction to Roman DutchLaw" by R.W. Lee, page 429 where Lee quotes Voet 6.1.13. where ajudicial sale gives a good title to the purchaser subject to certain sev-eral exceptions. He further relied on section 22(b) of the Sale of GoodsOrdinance, on the validity of any contract of sale under any less statu-tory power of sale or under the order of a Court of competent jurisdic-tion. The owner of the goods is precluded from denying the seller'sauthority to sell and he relied on the book Sale of Goods by P.S.Atiyah5th Edition, page 200: "The Court has a wide jurisdiction under the
CA Mercantile Credit Limited v. Sirimawathie and Others (Senanayake, J.)357
rules of Supreme Court to order the sale of goods where for any justand sufficient reason it may be desirable to have the goods sold atonce. Eg. because they are of a perishable nature or because themarket is falling. The Court has power to insist on a sale despite theobjection of the owner where such a course seems necessary or desir-able and he relied on the book Commercial Law by R.M. Godde, page400 which states that where goods are sold in market overt accordingto the usage of the market the buyer acquired a good title to the goodsprovided he buys them in good faith without notice of any defect orwant of title on the part of seller“
The buyer in market overt is only protected if the entire transac-tion takes place in the market itself between the hours of sunrise andsunset and if stolen goods which are sold in the market overt comeback into the hands of the thief he cannot rely on the title acquired inmarket overt by his predecessor. I am unable to agree with the sub-missions of the 2nd Respondent. In the instant case the judicial salewas a nullity. The learned Magistrate had failed to comply with the preconditions of section 431 (2) and (3); as the said order was a nullity allconsequential orders flowing have no effect in law. The concurrenceor the presence of the high officers of the Ministry of Justice does notgive sanctity to any illegal order made by the Judicial officer. The pub-lication in the Government Gazette has no effect as the order of thelearned Magistrate was in breach of the express provisions of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. Thereby his order was a nullity. I am of theview the maxim “Actus curiae gravabit ” is a complete answer to thesaid matter. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense andaffords a safe and certain guide for administration of the law.
In view of the above reasons I am of the view this is a fit case toexercise the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court because there areexceptional circumstances which amount to a breach of the principlesof natural justice and to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. In thecircumstances, I set aside the order made by the learned Magistrateon 15.11.85 and the purported judicial public auction and I direct the2nd Respondent to hand over the possession of the vehicle to theMagistrate's Court of Gampaha and the learned Magistrate will in-quire regarding the 'B‘ report filed by the Ragama Police in case N6:23418/B and if there was no criminal offence committed regarding the
356
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1996] 1 Sri L.R.
said vehicle to hand it over to the Petitioner Company as they were theabsolute owners of the said vehicle.
It is my considered view that the action of the judicial officer andthe O.I.C. Ragama during the relevant period merits condemnation,such action brings disrepute to the judicial service and the police serv-ice.
Sale by court set aside.
Vehicle ordered to be handed over to the Petitioner.