POLICE SERGEANT v. PANDWELA

047-NLR-NLR-V-17-POLICE-SERGEANT-v.-PANDWELA.pdf


( 148 )
1913
Present: Wood Benton A.C.J.
POLICE SERGEANT v. PANDWELA.
753—P. C. Kandy, 885.
Village Tribunal—Failure to report a case of rinderpest—First offence—Contagious Diseases {Animals) Ordinance, No. 26 of 1902—Isjurisdiction of Village Tribunal exclusive t
The jurisdiction of a Village Tribunal to try a first offence undersection 11 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1909 is not exclusive ; the Police1 Court has concurrent jurisdiction.
fJlHE facts are set out in the judgment.
Bartholomeuse, for the appellant.
Garvin, Acting S.-G., as amicus curiae.
October 27, 1913. Wood Benton A.C.J.—
The accused-appellant was charged in this case under section 11of Ordinance No. 25 of 1909 with having failed to report to theauthorities a case of rinderpest. The learned Police Magistrate con-victed him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Bs. 50, or in defaultto undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The objection was
taken at the trial that the ease was one of a fust offence, and that,therefore, under section 14 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1909, the VillageTribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to try it. The Police Magistrateover-ruled this objection on the ground that section 11 (1) gaveconcurrent jurisdiction to the Police Court, and he dealt with thecase on the merits, with the result above stated. The fact waselicited in' evidence that there is a Village Tribunal at Galagedara,of which the acoused da a native. There is nothing, however, toshow whether the offence was committed within the jurisdiction ofthe Village Tribunal, or whether, under the powers of section 6 (6)of the Village Communities Ordinance, 1889 (No. 24 of 1889), theinhabitants of the subdivision in which the Village Tribunal ofGalagedara is have made any rules for the prevention of cattledisease, for the breach of which the accused could be punished.The case has been disposed of under Ordinance No. 25 of 1909. Inmy opinion section 14 of that Ordinance has not .the effect of givingto every Village Tribunal, within whose jurisdiction a first offenceagainst the Ordinance has been committed, exclusive jurisdictionto try it. Where the Legislature has intended .to add to the exclusivepowers of Village Tribunals, it has done so by express reference tothe section (section 28 of Ordinance No. 24 of 1889) in which thosepowers are defined. See Ordinance No. 9 of 1896, section 8, andOrdinance No. 8 of 1908, section 3. Section 11 confers on the PoliceCourt general jurisdiction to deal with offences' against the Ordinance,and the jurisdiction conferred by section 14 is, in my opinion,concurrent with that of the Police Court, and not exclusive. TheLegislature has made it so with good reason. Many of the VillageTribunals throughout the country sit at intervals only. It wouldbe a most serious matter if first offences under the ContagiousDiseases (Animals). Ordinance, 1909, requiring, as they do, an theinterest alike of the public and of the accused, immediate investi-gation, had to wait, as in some cases they might have to do, for twoor three weeks at a time before they could be brought tp trial.
1M3.
Wood
Benton
A.C.J.
Police
Panduela
Appeal ditmisded.