060-NLR-NLR-V-14-THE-KING-v.-GIRIGORIS.pdf
( 209 )
Present: Lascelles C.J.
THE KING v. GIRIGORIS.
D. C. (Crim.) Galle, 13,718
“ The Pawnbrokers’ Ordinance, 1893 ”—Making false affidavit as to lossof pawn ticket—Offence under s. 19 (3).
■ A person who swore falsely an affidavit to the effect that he hadlost his pawn ticket was held to have committed an offence underseotion 19 (3) of “ The Pawnbrokers’ Ordinance, 1893.” “ Althoughthe document is not in all respects a declaration under theOrdinance, it purports to be such a declaration, and it is so asregards its substantial and material effect.”
THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.Bawa, A. S.-G., for the respondent.
April 10,1911. Lascelles C.J.—
This is an appeal from a conviction of the accused under sub-section (3) of section 19 of “ The Pawnbrokers’ Ordinance, 1893.”Section 19 of the Ordinance was enacted for the protection ofpersons who have lost their pawn tickets. It provides that anyperson alleging that his ticket has been lost or stolen maydeliver to the pawnbroker a declaration in the form described in1 {1901) 9 Tam. p. 12 (b).
AprillO.1911
19J. N. A 93848 (11/49)
( 210 )
ApriUOJOll
Lascellks
C.J.
The Kingv. Girigori*,
schedule 4, duly made before a Justice of the Peace by himself andby the person .identifying him. Thereupon the person who makesthe declaration has, as between himself and the pawnbroker, thesame rights and remedies as if he produced the pawn ticket.
Sub-section (3) of the same section provides that “ if any personmakes a declaration under this Ordinance either for himself or asidentifying another, knowing the same to be false in any material •particular, he is guilty of an offence.” The accused in this case hasbeen indicted under sub-section (3). It is contended on his behalfthat the document in question is an affidavit, and not a declarationunder the Ordinance. The answer to that is that, although thedocument is not in all respects a declaration under the Ordinance, itpurports to be such a declaration, and is so as regards its substantialand material effect ; although it is more or less in the form of anaffidavit. It is alleged again that the document is not a declarationunder the Ordinance, because there is no declaration hy the personwho should identify the declarant. But sub-section (3) provides fortwo separate and distinct offences. It is an offence either to makea false declaration under the Ordinance for the declarant himself,and it is also a distinct offence for the identifying person to make afalse declaration of identity. It seems to me that in the presentcase we have a declaration made by the declarant himself underthe Ordinance for the purposes of that Ordinance, and that havingbeen proved to be false, I am clearly of opinion that he was guiltyof an. offence under sub-section (3), section 19.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.