103-NLR-NLR-V-02-THE-QUEEN-v.-HINNIYA.pdf
( 241 )
THE QUEEN v. HINNIYA.
D. C. (CriminalOaUe, 12,298.
Highway robbery—Attempting to stab at the time of committing it—Juris-diction of District Court—Ceylon Penal Code, s. 383.
*
Where in a proseoution in the District Court for highway robberyit appeared that'in attempting to commit the robbery the aoouaeddrew a knife and attempted to stab the complainant, held, that thecase fell under section 383 of the Ceylon Penal. Code, and wasbeyond the jurisdiction of the District Court.
rj^HE facts of the case appear in the judgment.
Donihorst, for appellant.
Dias, C.C., for respondent.
7th December, 1896. Bonser, C.J.—
The appellant was tried and convicted of highway robbery andsentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment under section 380of the Penal Code. The plaintiff alleged an offence under section383, stating that the appellant drew a knife upon the complainantah the time of committing the robbery. For the prosecution thecomplainant himself and a witness were called, and both sworethat the appellant drew a knife and attempted to stab the complain-ant. The District Judge finds as a fact that the appellant drew aknife on the complainant.
That being so the District Court had no jurisdiction to deal withthis case. If the facts are as proved no punishment can be givenof less than seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under section 383.Therefore this conviction must be quashed and the case ordered tobe committed for trial at the next ensuing criminal sessions of theSupreme Court to be holden at Colombo, subject to' any applicationwhich the appellant may make if he thinks the transfer wouldprejudice him in any way, when the Court will listen to'what he hasto say.
VoL. II.12(65)29
1396.
December 7.