( 509 )
Present: Drieberg J.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. JACOLIS PEIRIS et at.
'258—P. C. Oampola, 19,325.
•Unlawful gaming—Issue of search warrant—Information recorded butnot read over—Material—Ordinance No. 17 of 1889, s. 4.
Information, upon which a search warrant issued, was recordedby the Police Magistrate and attested after the informant had puthis mark to the record, but the statement was not read out to theinformant.
Held, the issue of the search warrant was irregular.
Oarvin, for accused, appellants.
llangakoon, C.C., for complainant, respondent.
•June 19, 1929. Dbieberg J.—
The appellants were convicted of committing unlawful gamingby playing a card game for stakes, an offence punishable undersection 4 of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889.
The conviction rests solely on the presumption, drawn undersection 9 of the Ordinance, the premises having been entered bythe police under a search warrant, and the only question before meis whether the search warrant is regular.
On January 24 last the Police Magistrate had an affidavit swornto before him by Police Sergeant Gallella that he had credibleinformation that habitual gaming was being carried on in the houseof Jacobs, the first appellant; that “ thon ” was collected by Jacobs,that “ the game ” was open to the pubbc, that he watched thehouse on several days and saw people going to and coming from, the.said house. This material in itself did not justify the issue of asearch warrant. Pobce Sergeant GaUella at the same time producedbefore the Magistrate his informant, S. Charley. Charley wasexamined on affirmation; the Magistrate says in his judgmentthat the affirmation was administered by Sergeant GaUeUa.
Charley stated that gambling was carried on every day in the:house of Jacobs, who organized the gambling and cobected “ thonhe spoke to this of his own knowledge, having himself taken partin the gambling. Charley’s statement was recorded by the Magis-trate ; he put his mark to the record and this was attested by theMagistrate.
( 510 )
On this .material the search warrant was issued. The question.
whether this material was sufficient to justify the issue of a search
Dbibberq j • warrant was discussed in the Police Court, but it is not necessary- to decide this, for the information by Charley was not properlyInspector b®*016 the Police Magistrate and the issue of the warrant was there-of Police fore irregular.
Jacolie 1® Parson v. Kandiah et ol.1 Lyall Grant J. held that where thePetris information given is oral and not written, it could be converted,into written information, as required by section 7, if the informationgiven by the informant is read over to him and signed by him;as there was no record that this was done in that case, he held thatthe information could not be the basis of the issue of the warrant.
In Parson v. Kandiah et al. (supra) the informant did not signthe' record of his statement, as 1 find from the record of the case,P. C. Bandarawela, No. 20,553, which I called for. In the presentcase the informant Charley put his mark to the record but there isnothing to show that it tfas read over to him. Unless the record,of his statement is read over to the informant and signed by him,he thereby accepting it as correct, it is nothing more than a recordby another of his statement and cannot be regarded as written,information by him.1
The only material, therefore, which was properly before theMagistrate was that of Sergeant Gallella, and this was quite inade-quate to support the issue of the warrant, the otdy evidence he couldgive, apart from what he stated on the information of another,,being that he saw people going to and coming from the house.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the appellants.
(1927) 29 N. L. R. 94.
SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. JACOLIS PEIRIS et al