056-NLR-NLR-V-46-THOMPSON-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-C.-I.-D.-Respondent.pdf
164 WXJT5YBWABDB1NE J.—Thompson and Inspectof of Police. (C./.D.)
1915Present: Wijeyewardene J.
THOMPSON, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE (C.I.D.),
Respondent. '
106—M. C. Colombo, 43,647.
Defence -fMiscellaneous) Regulation 14 (3) (f)—Possession, by accused, ofphotographs containing information useful to enemy—Defence that thepossession teas not likely to prejudice defence of Island or the efficientprosecution of the war—Proviso to Regulation 14.
Where the accused had in hiB possession, as manager of a firm ofphotographers, certain photographs belonging to a customer whichcontained information which might be nsefnl to the enemy, and therewas evidence that the photographs were '' packed in an ordinary news-paper " and placed by the accused on the top of a cabinet for nearlytwo years in a shop frequented by a number of people—
Held, that the accused had failed to show that he was entitledto the benefit of the proviso to Begulation 14 of the Defence(Miscellaneous) Begulations.
y^PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Colombo.
E. F. N. Oratiaen for the accused, appellant.
H. W. B. Weeraauriya, C.C. for the Crown, respondent.
Cut. adv. vult.
March 22, 1945. Wueyewabdbnb J.—
The four accused charged in this case are employed in the ColonialPhotographic Company and are paid by the firm of photographers calledPlatd Limited. The first accused, the present appellant, is the Managerof the Company and the other accused occupied positions subordinateto the first accused.
The Police charged all these accused with having had in their possessionon May 26, 1944, photographs marked PI to P15 containing information
WUEYEWABDENE 3.—Thompson and Inspector of Police (C.I.D.)
165
which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy and therebycommitted an offence in contravention of Regulation 14 (3) (J) of theDefence (Miscellaneous) Regulations. The Magistrate acquitted thesecond, third and fourth accused and convicted the first accused andsentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or, in default, undergo one month’srigorous imprisonment.
The accused did not question the correctness of the opinion given byone of the witnesses for the prosecution—the Senior Naval SecurityOfficer for the Island—that the photographs contained information whichmight be useful to the enemy. The first accused admitted further thathe had those documents in his possession as Manager of the ColonialPhotographic Company. He relied, however, for his defence on theproviso to Regulation 14 which reads : —
“ A person shall not be guilty of an offence against this regulationin respect of anything done by him if he proves …. thatthe doing of that thing was not likely to prejudice the defence of theIsland or the efficient prosecution of the war ”.
The evidence of the first accused shows that one Boone, a customerof the Company, brought to him in December, 1942, some photographsfor enlargement and also some negatives for contact printing. In thenormal course of business the first accused himself took them to Plat4Limited. Sometime later the prints and enlargements were sent byPlat4 Limited to the premises of the Colonial Photographic Company.The smaller prints were kept' under lock and key in a cabinet, when theshop was closed for the day. The larger parcels were kept on top of thecabinet. Boone did not come back for the parcels. If he came to claimthe photographs, the first accused would have examined them beforedelivery to him to see if the pictures – were likely to convey informationuseful to the enemy and would have sent them to the Civil Censor, ifthere was any doubt. That was the course of business consistentlyfollowed by the first accused since the outbreak of the war.
While there is no reason for rejecting that evidence given by the firstaccused, I am unable to ignore the evidence led by the prosecution to theeffect that the photographs Pi, P13, P14 and P15 were “ packed in anordinary newspaper ” and had probably been kept on the top of a cabinetfor nearly two years in a shop frequented by a number of people.
I am unable to say that the Magistrate has erred in holding that theaccused has failed to shew that he was entitled to the benefit of theproviso to Regulation 14.
The accused who is an elderly person of sixty-five years is a Britishsubject whose loyalty to the Allied cause is not open to the least suspicion.He was a member of the Ceylon Planters’ Rifle Corps and had servedin the last war.
I do not think that in all the circumstances of this case it is necessaryto impose a heavy penalty. I reduce the fine to Rs. 75. Subject to thismodification, the order made by the Magistrate will stand.
Conviction affirmed.
Fine reduced.