097-NLR-NLR-V-18-THE-KING-v.-JAYASINGHA.pdf
( 374 )
4625.
«e>
Present : Ennis J.
THE KING JAYASINGKA.1,087—Pr C. Kandy, 97.
Criminal Procedure Code, section 152—Magistrate also District fudge—Acts as Magistrate even token eating under section & 152 (3)—He»enhanced powers of punishment—Magistrate may try one offence-summarily as Police Magistrate and another under section 152.
A Magistrate actingunder section182 acts throughout as
Magistrate and not as District. Judge. If the offence is one ordi-narily uiafe'e by a District Court only the Magistrate may, if hois also a District Judge and considers that the offence may properlybe tried summarily, try the case summarily as. Magistrate. Theeffect of the section is to give the Magistrate jurisdiction in casesin which he would not otherwise have jurisdiction, and in suc^cases he has enhanced powers of punishment.
If a Magistrate has jurisdiction to try..an offence summarily, hecould not under the third paragraph of flection 152 get any enhancedpowers of punishment; that paragraph applies only where theoffence is one “ not summarily triable by a Police Magistrate. ”
A Police Magistrate may, in the same case, exercise jurisdictionfor the trial of one offence as Magistrate mid for the trial of anotheroffence under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I
– N this case the accused was charged and convicted on six countsconnected with the disturbances in Kandy. There were two
counts under section 140 of the Penal Code, one under section 142,one under section 144, one under sections 146 and 410, and one undersection 148. The learned Magistrate was also a District Judge,and tried the case summarily under section 152 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure. He sentenced the accused to six months'rigormfs imprisonment on each of the first two counts, the sentencesto run concurrently, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment oneach of the other counts, the sentences to run concurrently.
Bawat K.G. (with him A. St. V. Jmjewardene and E, G. P.Jayetilleke), for appellant.
Schneider, Acting Solicitor-General (with him Grenier, CrownCounsel), for the Crown.
August 27, 1915. Ennis J.—
[His Lordship set out the facts, and continued]:—
Objection has been taken that the Court could not Ixercisejurisdiction as a Police Court for the trial of one offence and juris-diction under section 152 as a District Court for the trial of smother
( 875 )
V
offence. Further objectioif was taken that It could not exercise lW5bDistrict Court powers of punishment for an offence over which ithad jurisdiction as a Police Court. In my opinion the first ppfnt——.
is unsound and the second point right. A dote perusal of section152 shows that a Magistrate acting under<section 152 acts throughout,ns Magistrate and not as District Judge. If the offenea is onewhich a Police Court can by summarily, the Magistrate is to exercisethe jurisdiction and powers ordinarily vested in Police Courts. Iftire offence is one ordinarily triable by a District Court only (1.6.,on tire case being committed to tire District Court for trial). theMagistrate may, if he is also a District Judge and considers thatthe offence may properly be tried summarily, try the oase summarilyns Magistrate. The effect of the section is to give the Magistratejurisdiction in cases in which he would not otherwise have jurisdic-tion. and in such cases he has enhanced powers of punishment.
This view of the matter is supported by a oase decided by LawrieA.G.J. and reported in Koch’s Reports 19.
Several cases have been cited in support of the objections:
W. Don Andris v. N. Bin Appuhamy,1 * Peine e. Wijsiunge* and anunreported oase (527—P. C. Gaile, 32 3). These cases were all case®of offences which were ordinarily triable by the Police Court as wallas the District Court. The Magistrate had power to tty themsummarily as Police Magistrate, and if he considered his ordinarypowers of punishment insufficient it would be his duty to commit tothe District Court for non-summary trial. An offence triable by aPolice Court or District Court appears to be one less serious, thanan offence triable by a District Court alone. If, then, the Magistratehad jurisdiction to try summarily, he could not under the thirdparagraph of section 352 get any enhanced powers of punishment,for that paragraph expressly states that it applies only where theoffence is one “ not summarily triable by a Police Court. ** This beingso, the sentence imposed on the last two counts, under sections 146and 410 and section 148, are in excess of the Magistrate's powers.
The imposition of a sentence beyond his powers does not affect theMagistrate’s jurisdiction to try the esse, notwithstanding that,infarentially, it raises the supposition that he considered his ordinary. powers of punishment insufficient. In this oase the Magistrateelected to try summarily at tbs express request of tbs prosecution,and for the reason, inter alia, that he considered it desirable in theinterests of justice to dispose of the cases as speedily as passible, asthere were a large number awaiting .trial. Moreover, for two of theoffences charged the Magistrate could and did exorcise his enhancedpowers of punishment, and by directing the sentences to ran son-currentiy he has in effect not imposed a total sentence beyond hispowers. In the circumstances the accused has not been prejudiced
I 1 Br. 42.* £ Bet. 85.
» S. 0. Mins., June 26,1215.
( 376 )
jlMfif by the Magistrate exceeding the limits of punishment on two counted
j ° and it would be unnecessary to direct a trial by non-sumirary
-—pi&peedings.
Kfag v»
Jayfbingha [His Lordship proceeded to discuss the facts of the case and1^acquitted the accused.]
Accused acquitted.