GARVIN S.P.J.—Pillai v. Dewanarayane.
1932Present: Garvin S.P.J.
PILLAI v. DEWANARAYANE et al.
317—P. C. Panadure, 14,083.
Appeal—Refusal to issue process—Sanction to appeal—Mandamus—CriminalProcedure Code, s. 337.
Under section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code an appeal lieswhere the Court has assumed urisdiction and made order refusingprocess. The right of appeal is subject to the sanction of the Attorney-General.
A mandamus lies where the Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction.
PPEAL from an order of the Police Magistrate of Panadure.
Ranawake, for the complainant-appellant.
Rajapakse (with him J.R. Jay aw ar dene), for accused-respondent.
November 16, 1932. Garvin S.P.J.—
This appeal must clearly be dismissed.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to issue process, and thatorder was made after the Police Magistrate had examined the complainantat considerable length and after considering that evidence had decidedthat it was not a case in which he should issue process. The procedureto be followed in cases in which process is refused is that which is laiddown in section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section hasbeen interpreted in the case of Norman v. Pererax, where Bonser C.J.,in a judgment, which has not to my knowledge ever been dissented fromand which has on the contrary been consistently followed, indicatedthat the remedies of mandamus and appeal provided by section 337 arenot co-extensive; that a mandamus lies where a Court has refused toexercise jurisdiction, and that an appeal lies where the Court has assumedjurisdiction and thereafter made its order refusing process. But theright of appeal is subject to the condition that it is sanctioned by theAttorney-General. This appeal has not received the sanction of theAttorney-General, and the objection taken to it by counsel for therespondent must therefore be sustained.
As to the papers filed in support of a prayer for mandamus, the reasonsI have given will explain my refusal to entertain it. This is not a casein which the Police Magistrate has refused to exercise jurisdiction.
i 4 N. L. R., p. 85.
PILLAI v. DEWANARAYANE et al