061-NLR-NLR-V-47-THE-KING-v.-CROOS.pdf
HOWARD C. J—Seimon v. Velappan (&. T., Police)
185-
Present: Soertsz S.P.J.
THE KING v. CROOS.Application fob Discharge ob fob Bail in M. C.
Colombo, No. 27,483.
Courts Ordinance {Cap. 6), s. 31—Application, for discharge or bait—Scope of—Proper forum—Onus on Crown.
180
SOERTSZ S.P. J.—The King v. Croot.
Where an application for discharge or. alternatively, for bail wasmade under section 31 of the Courts Ordinance and the application fordischarge was opposed on the grounds (a) that it was not shown that theprisoners might properly have been tried at the second criminal sessionsafter their commitment, (6) that the prisoners were brought to trial atthe second criminal sessions although no valid verdict was reached, thejury having disagreed, (c) that the application for discharge Bhouldhave been made to the Judge presiding at the sessions—
Held, (I) that it was for the Crown to show that the prisoners couldnot properly be brought to trial, (2) that the prisoners had been broughtto trial at the second criminal sessions, (3) that an application fordischarge could not be entertained by a Judge sitting in appeal.
Held, further, that the application for bail should be allowed unlessgood cause was shown to the contrary, or unless the trial had beenpostponed at the prisoner’s instance.
^ PPLICATION for discharge or, alternatively, for bail.
Ananda Pereira, in support.
D. Janszi, C.C., for Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 7, 1944. Soebtsz S.P.J.—
This is an application under section 31 of the Courts Ordinance askingthat two prisoners, now on remand, awaiting their trial on a charge ofmurder be discharged from imprisonment for the offence for which theyhave been committed to trial, on the ground that they have not beenbrought to trial “ at the second Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Courtholdon after the date of the commitment at which they might properly betried ” and on the ground that all the other conditions of section 31 havebeen satisfied ; or in the alternative, it is asked that the prisoners beadmitted to bail in pursuance of the first part of seotion 31.
Crown Counsel opposed the application for discharge on the grounds :—
(а)that it has not been shown that the prisoners might properly have
been tried at the second Criminal Sessions after their commit-ment.
(б)that they were brought to trial at the second Criminal Sessions
although no valid verdict was reached the jury having disagreed.
(c) that the application for the discharge should have been made tothe Judge presiding at the Sessions.
In regard to (a), in my opinion, it is for the Crown to show that theprisoners could not properly be brought to trial, but the failure to do thatis immaterial in this instance, because in regard to (b), I find that theprisoners wore brought to trial at the second Criminal Sessions, andalso because, in regard to (c) I find it is not competent for me sitting hereto entertain an application for discharge under section 31.
The first application is, therefore, refused.
In regard to the second application, that is to say, the application forbail, I must allow it unless good cause has been shown to the contrary,or unless the trial had been postponed at the prisoners’ instance. Nogood cause has been shown to the contrary, nor is it contended that therewas postponement at tho prisoners’ instance. I, therefore, direct that theprisoners be admitted to bail in a sum of Rs. 7,500 each, and' I further
BOERTSZ A.C.J.—Pillai v. Sirieena.
187
direct that the band should provide inter cilia that they shall, in theinterval between their release on bail and the termination of their trial,report themselves on the Monday of every week, at the nearest PoliceStation, and also that they undertake not to hold communication in anyway with any witness for the Crown, and that they shall appear to standtheir trial on the date now fixed for their trial.
Application for discharge refused.
Application for bail allowed.