( 154 )
SARAM v. NEINA MARIKAR.
M. C., Colombo, 3,871.
Criminal Procedure Code, as. 188 and 297—Admission of charge by proctor—Conviction.
A conviction resting upon an admission of the charge by the accused’sproctor is irregular. There is no provision in the Criminal ProcedureCode that a proctor may plead for or on behalf of the accused.
HE defendant was charged with a breach of sub-section 2 ofsection 201 of the Ordinance No. 7 of 1887, in that he erected
certain rooms constructed of posts and planks adjoining anotherhouse and within 30 feet of Chatham street, without permission inwriting from the Chairman of the Municipal Council.
On the 24th November, 1899, Mr. Proctor Aserappa appeared forthe defendant and admitted the charge. He applied for time toget a permit from the Council nunc pro tunc. The Magistrategranted him time, but on its expiry he, by his proctor, “ preferredto pay a fine than obey the law.” The Magistrate fined him Rs. 50.The defendant appealed.
Domhnt, for appellant, referred to sections 188 and 297 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code and contended that the plea of theaccused should not have been tendered by his proctor.
Cur. adv. vult.
( 155 )
16th January, 1900. Bbowne, A.J., set aside the order andremitted the ease for trial by the following judgment:—
It is not recorded whether or not appellant was present when onthe 24th Novemv'-;r (to quote the record) “ Mr. S. L. Aserappaappears for the defendant and admits the charge.”
I find no provision in section 188 of the Criminal ProcedureCode that a proctor or pleader may plead for or on behalf of theaccused. His powers to represent him in his absence appear tobe limited to those given by section 297, and when the Court hasspecially dispensed with the accused’s attendance, which privilegeis not stated to have been allowed here. I consider I should notin any way recognize any practice of allowing another than theaccused to appear and plead for him.
The procedure was irregular, and the conviction on that pleacannot stand.
SAEAM v. NEINA MARIKAR