( 201 )
PERERA v. LOUISHAMY et al.
P. C., Matara, 861.
Ordinance No. 10 of 1844, s. 32—Unlawful possession of arrack—Searchxoithout warrant.
In a prosecution under section 32 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844 forunlawful possession of arrack, the question whether the accused’shouse was properly entered for the purpose of searching for arrackis immaterial to the question involved in the case.'
TN this case two persons were charged under section 32 of Ordi-nance No. 10 of 1844 with being in unlawful possession of acertain quantity of arrack. At the trial, the renter deposed thathe went with the Vidane Arachchi to the house of the accused;that he asked the second accused, who was the wife of the firstaccused, to open the door and let them in to search the house;that she did so; and that they found in the house a quantity ofarrack, which they seized and took away. In cross-examinationhe stated that he had no warrant to enter the house. Tfis counselthen objected to the whole proceeding, on the ground that theseizure of the arrack was unlawful in the absence of a searchwarrant to enter the house. The Magistrate dismissed the case.
The Attorney-General appealed.
Sampayo, for appellant.
( 202 )
27th January, 1898. Bonseb, C.J.—
I think this application must succeed. The question whetherthe house was properly entered or not is immaterial to the questionwhich the Magistrate had to decide, which was whether the accusedwere in unlawful possession of the arrack or not.
The case must therefore go back to be heard and dealt withaccording to law.
PERERA v. LOUISHAMY et al