055-NLR-NLR-V-62-THE-QUEEN-v.-B.-RUPASINGHE-PERERA.pdf
$§{JBASNAY AKE, C.J.-—The Queen v. Rupaainghe Per era
[In the Court of Criminal Appeal]
Present: Basnayake, C.J. (President), Sansoni, J., and Sinnetamby, J.THE QUEEN v. B. RtTPASINGHE PERERAIn thE matter of an Application under section 15 (1) of thSCourt of Criminal Appeal Ordinance, No. 23 of 1938
S. C. 1 (2nd Western Circuit 1958)—M. C. Colombo 19177
Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance, No. 23 of 1938—Section 15 {1)—Admission ofappellant to bail.
Ball is not granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal unless there areexceptional circumstances.
Application for bail.
Colvin R. de Silva, with W. P. N. de Silva, for 3rd Accusal- Appellant.
N.TittaioeUa, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
July 7, 1958. Basnayake, C.J.—
This is an application for bail by the 3rd accused-appellant in S. C.1/M. 0. Colombo 19177 which came up for trial at the ^Criminal Sessionsof the Second Western Circuit 1958.
239
BASUAYAKE, C.J.—'The Queen v. Bupasinghe Per era
Learned counsel submitted that he was aware that bail is not usuallygranted pending the^hearing of an appeal and that it is granted in onlyexceptional circumstances. He submitted that this was a case ofexceptional circumstances.
The chief ground urged in support of the application is that the hearingof the appellant’s appeal is likely to be delayed as the preparation of thetranscript of the shorthand note of the proceedings is likely to take morethan the usual time owing to the length of the trial in the course of whichover 100 witnesses were examined and more than 400 exhibits were pro-duced. ( It was also urged that owing to the large large number ofexhibits and the complicated nature of the facts counsel would needthe assistance of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the applicant referred us to the case of Rex v.Cooray1 in which a single Judge of this Court had allowed bail on theground that exceptional circumstances had been established. He alsoreferred us to the case of Rex v. Keerala 2 and the English cases of FrederickNewbery and Burnett Leon Elman 3, Alexander Davidson Stewart4, andWilliam Ear ding and two others 6.
%
✓
Learned counsel for the Crown submitted that out of the 400 documentsinvolved not more than 50 documents touched the case of the applicantand that although the. facts proved in the case ranged over the periodDecember 1953 to 11th June 1955 the applicant came into the picture onlyon or about the 22nd April 1955. Learned counself for the Crown alsoreferred us to the cases of Edgar Gordon 6, John William Gott 7, EdwardFitzgerald 8 and Richard William Starkie 9 in which bail has been refused.
The power to admit an appellant to bail pending the determination ofhis appeal is vested in this Court by section 15 (1) of the Court of Criminal
Appeal,Ordinance. That provision reads :**
“ The Court of Criminal Appeal may, if they think fit, on the
application of an appellant, admit the appellant to bail pending the
determination of his appeal. ”
. In the first of the cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant thelearned Judge observed : <c Release on bail will only be granted in casespending appeal in exceptional circumstances. Having considered thismatter carefully, I consider that there are in this case exceptional cir-cumstances' where I am justified in granting the application In thesecond case cited by him bail was refused on the ground that there were no
? §1 N. L, B. 350.
48 N. L. B. 2Q£.
3 23 Cr. App. It. 66.
23 Gr. App. B. 68.
6 23 Gr. App. J3. '143.
7 Qr- -App• R: 182.
716. Gr. App. R. 86.
■ 8 9 17 Cr. App. B. 147.
9 24 Cr. App. B. 1.
SANSONI, J.—Salahudeen v. Thahir
240
exceptional circumstances. The other cases cited by him are decisions ofthe Court of Criminal Appeal in England. In -the case of Newbery and‘ Burnett Leon Elman (supra) no reasons why bail was granted are stated.
The applicant has not satisfied us that this is a case in which we shouldtake the exceptional and unusual course of granting bail. Theapplication is therefore refused.
Application refused.