070-NLR-NLR-V-45-THE-KING-v.-V.-M.-KANDAWANAM.pdf
HOW Ait D C.J.—The King v. V. M. Kandnwanam.
39o
[Court of Criminal Appeal.]
1944 Present: Howard C.J., Moseley S.P.J. and Wijeyewardene J.THE XING- v. V. M. K AND A WAN AM.
8—M. C. Point Pedro, 2,730.
Court of Criminal Appeal—Application for extension of time within whichto appeal against conviction and sentence—Practice of the Court.
An application for leave to appeal out of time will not be grantedby the Court of Criminal Appeal unless the Court is satisfied upon theapplication thatthere are such merits in theapplication that the
appeal would probably succeed.
'■ HIS was an application for leave to appeal out of time.
Applicant in person in support.
May 15, 1944. Howard C.J.—
This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction forattempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. After beingfound guilty, the accused was sentenced to 4 years’ rigorous imprisonment.Jhe application for leave to appeal is out of time by a period of six weeks.
This Court on previous occasions had laid down the principles on whichit grants an application for an extension of time. Those principles followthe practice of the English Court of Appeal as laid down, in. the case of
206
SOEKTSZ J.—Mendis Appuhamy and Atupattu.
The King v. Lawrence Marsh and others1. I cannot do better than cite aparagraph of the report in that case where Avory J. said: —
In these circumstances, it being the rule of practice in this Courtnoc to grant any considerable extension of time unless we are satisfiedupon the application that there ate such merits that the appeal wouldprobably succeed, we are quite unable to say in this case that therewas no evidence on which the applicants could properly be convictedon one at least of the counts in this indictment, therefore we do notgrant the application for an extension of time.”
Now. applying those principles to the facts of this case, it would appearthat the trial of the case lasted over a period of five days; the accusedwas defended by experienced Counsel and every aspect of the easereceived consideration by Counsel and the Judge and finally by the jury.It is impossible to say that the merits of this application are such that thisappeal would probably succeed The application is therefore dismissed.
Application refused.