062-NLR-NLR-V-02-PAARIS-v.-ALLIS-et-al.pdf
( 161 )
PAARIS v. ALLIS et of.P. C., Negombo, 20,608.
1896.
September 3.
Irregular proceedings—Trial of two persons under one. charge for illicitpossession or sale of arrack—Requisites prior to conviction of anoffence not embodied in charge—Criminal Procedure Code, s. 226.
It is irregular, and would afford good reason for quashing a con-viction, to try two persons at one trial either for possession or sale ofarrack contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844.
Before a Police Magistrate convicts an accused of an offence notembodied in the charge framed, but which, from the facts admittedor proved, he appears to have committed, he must, under section226 of the Criminal Procedure Code, frame a fresh charge, and readand explain the same to the accused. The omission to do this is afatal irregularity.
T N this case complaint was made to the Police Magistrate ofJ Negombo charging two people, Allis and Lorensu, withhaving been in possession of some bottles of arrack under circum-stances constituting an offence against the provisions of OrdinanceNo. 10 of 1844. After recording the evidence for the prosecutionthe Magistrate framed a formal charge against both the accused forillegal possession of arrack, but, without framing a fresh charge, heultimately convicted them of illicitly selling arrack, and sentencedthem to undergo three months’ imprisonment, and to pay a fine ofBs. 25 each. The accused appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
3rd September, 1896. Withers, J., having discussed the facts,set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused on the groundthat there was no evidence of sale by them of arrack. 'He thenproceeded to deal with certain irregularities in the case as follows :—
There are, moreover, two irregularities in this case, one ofwhich' would have afforded a good reason for quashing theconviction. The offences of the two accused, whether of posses-sion or of sale contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance, were'separate offences, and should have been tried separately. Their’being tried together rendered the proceedings null and void.The other irregularity I refer to is an omission to observe therequirements of section 226 of the Criminal Procedure amending.Ordinance No. 22 of 1890. That, section enacts :“ A police
“ magistrate may convict an accused of any offence over which a“ police court has summary jurisdiction, which, from the facts“ admitted or proved, he appears to have committed, whatever ■Vol. n12(55)29.
( 162 )
1896. “may be the nature of the complaint or information! TheSeptember 3. “.police magistrate, before he so convicts an accused as aforesaid,Wuhebs, J. “ shall frame a charge in writing, and shall read and explain the-“ same to the accused.”
I can find in these proceedings no charge framed against eitherof the accused of the offence of selling arrack against the provisionsof the Ordinance.