122-NLR-NLR-V-48-METHIAS-HAMY-Appellant-and-GUNETILLEKE-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-Respondent.pdf
WIJEYEWAKDENE S.P-J.—Methias Hamy v. Gunetilleke,
373
1947Present: Wijeyewardene S.P.J.
METHIAS HAMY, Appellant, and GUNETILLEKE, INSPECTOROF POLICE, Respondent.
S. C. 192—M. C. Colombo, 29,504.
Elections—Personation by votes—Application for ballot paper—Preparation—Penal Code, s. 169D.
A person who applies for a voting paper in the name of any otherperson is guilty of the offence of personation at an election under section169d of the Penal Code. It is not necessary that he should have obtaineda voting paper in the name of the other person.
^^PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
F. A. Hayley, K.C. (with him J. Femandopulle), for the accused,appellant.
B. C. F. Jayaratne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 1, 1947. Wijeyewardene S.P.J.—
The charge against the accused stated that, at an Election held underthe Municipal Councils Ordinance for the return of a member to representMaligawatta ward in the Municipal Council, the accused applied for avoting paper in the name of another voter, Richard Jayawardene, and,thereby, committed an offence punishable under section 169f of thePenal Code read with section 5 of Ordinance No. 27 of 1946. The accusedwas convicted on the charge and. sentenced to rigorous imprisonment forsix months.
A voter entering an election booth goes first to the “ Direction Clerk ”and gives his name to that Clerk. The Clerk gives him a chit, writing onit the serial number appearing in the Register of Voters against his name.Very often, as in this case, a voter brings a card bearing his name, issuedto him by a candidate. That card is not an official document. The Clerkthen writes on a chit the serial number appearing in the register againstthe name in the card. The voter produces that chit issued by the Clerkbefore the Presiding Officer. One of the “ Polling Clerks ” of the Presiding. Officer reads out the number appearing on the chit and asks the voterhis name. If the election agents of the candidates who are seated nearthe Presiding Officer do not question the identity of the voter, “theballot paper Clerk ” who, too, is seated by the Presiding Officer issues avoting paper to the voter.
In this case the accused entered the election booth and presented to theDirection Clerk the card P2 said to have been issued to him by one of thecandidates. That card gave the name of the voter as Kahatadu VithanaAratchige Richard Jayewardene. The Direction Clerk issued to him thechit P 1 bearing the serial number 81 corresponding to the name on thecard P 2. The accused went to the Presiding Officer and handed the chitP 1 to one of the Polling Clerks. The Clerk read out the number 81 and
374
JAYETIL.EKE J.—Arunachalam v. Muttutamby.
immediately one of the election agents challenged the accused. ThePresiding Officer then asked the accused his name and he gave his nameas K. V. A. Richard Jayewardene. As a result of further questioning,the Presiding Officer was satisfied that the accused was trying to personateanother voter and no voting paper was, therefore, issued to him. Theevidence for the prosecution established that the accused was not K. V. A.Richard Jayewardene and that the man bearing that name was a voterfor this ward but was living at the time at Gal-oya.
The only point argued in appeal was that the evidence did not discloseanything more than a preparation to commit the offence under sectionlf!9D. It was argued that the accused did not receive a voting paper andthat the accused might have changed his mind at any moment before thevoting paper was issued to him.
This argument ignores the fact that section 169d makes anyone who“ applies for a voting paper ” in the name of any other person guilty ofthe offence of personation at an election. It is not necessary to provethat the person charged obtained the voting paper in the name of anyother person. The evidence shows that the accused did everything thathe had to do with regard to his application for a voting paper.
I hold that the Crown has proved the charge against the accused andI dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.