WIJAYATILAKJ3, J.—Hamza Naina v. Inspector of Police, Qampaha
of Galakiliyawa v. Inspector Joseph 1 and Menon v. Lantine a and hosubmits that the Magistrate is entitled to make use of his personalobservations and arrive at cortain conclusions. Theroforo in the instantcaso ho was ontitled to presume that this particular place fell •within thoColombo District as he was tho Magistrate functioning at Gampaha.However, it may bo noted that the Judicial Districts of Coylon withwhich a Magistrate may be familiar do not correspond to the Adminis-trative Districts of Cejdon. In this case tho Police Inspector who shouldhavo been more familiar with the area, has himself confessed that ho wasnot aware of the limits of the Colombo District.
Mr. Jayatiloke has referred me to a recont judgment of de Ivrotser, J.in Mendis v. Jayawardene S.C. 543/68 M.C. Avissawella 80S38 S.C.minutos of 23.10.68 which has dealt with a similar question. With greatrespect I am in agreement with the judgment of my brothor do Krotsor, J.and tho prineix>lo set out by him would be applicable to the facts beforemo the only evidence being that the beef stall is at No. 3 Yakkala on theGampaha-Kirindiwela Road and I would uphold the objection raised bycounsel for tho accused that tho Magistrate was not justified in presumingthat this stall is within tho Colombo District, on tho facts proved in thiscase. Perhaps, if the evidence was that the stall in question is situatedwithin close proximity to the Municipal limits of Colombo or within well. defined and "well known physical boundaries the presumption mighthave been justified but in the instant case it would be quito unsafe tobase a conviction on a rather tonuous presumption of the Magistrate.
I would accordingly quash the conviction and acquit the accused.
Conviction quashed.
1 (1366) 69 N. L. R. 152.
* (1941) 43 N. L. R. 34.