MOSELEY S.P.J-—The Attorney-General v. Pannikam
194%Present: Moseley S.P.J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. PANNIKAM et al.
M. C. Anuradhapmra, Nos. 9,138 and 9,141.
Elephant—Capture without licence—Property of Crown—Fauna and FloraProtection Ordinance, Cap. 3125, s. 16(2).
An elephant, which is captured without the authority of a licence,is the property of the Crown, and a Court has no power to order itsdelivery to the offending captor.
PPLICATION to revise an order made by the Magistrate ofAnuradhapura.
£?. H. T. CfunaseTtera, C. C., in support.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., (with Kanapathipillai), for 2nd respondent.
January 21, 1944. Moseley S.P.J.—
This is an application to revise the order of the learned Magistratemade in two prosecutions under section 20 of the Fauna and FloraProtection Ordinance (Chapter 325) for taking in each case an elephantin breach of the conditions of a licence.
In each case the accused pleaded guilty and a fine was imposed. Incase No. 9,182 the fine was paid by the accused in case No. 9,141 whowas then allowed to take the elephant which was the subject of tbecharge in case No. 9.132. Similarly in case No. 9,141 he was allowed toretain possession of the elephant which he had taken unlawfully.
Now section 16 (21 of Chapter 325 provides that an elephant taken in thesecircumstances shah be the property of the Crown. It would appear,therefore, that the order made in each case in regard to the dispositionof tbe animals was illegal. That part of the order must therefore bedeleted.
The accused in case No. 9,141 is to produce the two animals, if they arestill in his possession, before the Magistrate' of Anuradhapuia on orbefore February 18, 1944. If the animals are no longer in his possessionhe should attend the Court on that day and give information as to theirwhereabouts as far as they may be known to him.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. PANNIKAM et al