042-NLR-NLR-V-05-P.C.-,-Panadure-9,292.pdf
( 140 )
P. C., Panathire. 9.292.
1901.
Judgment■ of Polite Court—Delay in delivery—Criminal Procedure Code,s. 190.
Where a Police Magistrate, after hearing the case for the prosecution,deferred judgment, as the parties desired one month's time to settle theirdifferences out of Court, and no settlement being arrived at at the eDd ofthe period, the Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him toimprisonment,—
Held, per Lawbib, A.C.J.—That the conviction and sentence werebad, in that section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, required theverdict and sentence to be recorded forthwith after evidence taken.
I
N this oase the accused was charged with quitting the serviceof his master without reasonable cause iu breach of section 11
of No. 11 of I860, and with neglecting to attend to his work onKosgahalanda estate belonging to complainant.
At the close of _the case for the prosecution the parties agreedto settle their differences out of Court, and the Police Magistrateallowed them qne month’s time to carry out the terms of thesettlement and deferred judgment.
(141)
At the end of that period, the accused not having paid thecomplainant Us. 80 as agreed, the Court summoned him to appear,and on his appearance it convicted the accused and sentenced himto three months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed.
E. W. Jayaifianlam, for accused, appellant.—The conviction ishad. as it is shown that the complainant did not give the accusedany work when the accused offered himself for work. Theallegation of the complainant that he left word at the accused'shouse that he was wanted for work does not fix accused withnotice that he was required. The conviction is bad as the sentencewas not passed forthwith as required by section 190 of theCriminal Procedure Code.
Cur. adv. vult.
Lawkik, A.C..J:—
After trial, before the Magistrate had decided whether to convictor to acquit, or at least he had given his verdict, the partiesproposed asf a settlement that the accused should pay the com-plainant Rs. 80 within a mouth. That time was " allowed ”. Amonth afterwards, when the accused was present, it was statedthat the amount- had not yet been paid, and the accused wassentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.
I think it was ultra vires to give a verdict a month after thetrial. It must be given forthwith; and, besides, here the Magis-trate does not- specify the offence of which he found the accusedguilty, nor does he give his reasons for the conviction.
The proceedings are irregular, and are quashed.
1U01-