130-NLR-NLR-V-47-UPARIS-Appellant-and-POLICE-Respondent.pdf
378
SOERTSZ A.C.J.—Vparis v. Police.
1946Present: Soertsz A.C.J.
UPARIS, Appellant, and POLICE, Respondent.
819■—M ■ C. Matugama, 984.
Criminal procedure—Jurisdiction—Charge of escaping from lawful custody—By what Court triable—Penal Code, s. 219.
A Magistrate’s Court has no jurisdiction to try a case where theaccused is charged under section 219 of the Penal Code with the offenceof escaping from lawful custody, if the custody into which the accusedhad been, taken was on a complaint of an offence which was not cognizableby a Magistrate’s Court.
A
PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court,Matugama.
Accused-appellant in person.
E. P. Wijetunge, G.C., for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 26, 1946. Soertsz A.C.J.—
The appellant had been taken into custody on a complaint of rapemade against him. Rape is a cognizable offence and arrest withouta warrant was lawful and, consequently, the custody was lawful. Ithas been established that he escaped from that custody and he wasliable to be charged as he was under section 219 of the Penal Code.The only question is whether the Magistrate was competent to try thatcase in his capacity of Magistrate. Column 8 of the First Scheduleappended to the Code of Criminal Procedure answers that question.The offence of rape not being cognizable in a Magistrate’s Court thecharge of escaping from the custody in which the appellant was inrespect of a complaint of such an offence was also not cognizable.
I 3et aside the conviction and remit the case for inquiry or for trialunder section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case remitted.