045-NLR-NLR-V-72-V.-S.-NADARAJAH-Appellant-and-THE-REGISTRAR-GENERAL-Respondent.pdf
H. N. G. FERNANDO, O.J.—Narlarajah v. Registrar—General
IS5
1969
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.
V. S. NADAR AJAH, Appellant, and THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL,
Respondent
S. C. 1275168—M. C. Jaffna, 35862
Notaries Ordinance (Cap. 107)—Section 31, Rule 3—Whether it prohibits the signatur*of an incomplete duplicate.
While Rulo 3 of Section 31 of tho Notaries Ordinanco provides that aduplicate of a deed may not bo signed before tho original instrument isexecuted, it does not clearly prohibit tho Notary from taking the signatureof on incomplete duplicate.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Jaffna.P. Somatilekam, for the accused-appellant.
Kumar AjnaraseJcere, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-Goneral.
May 14,1969. H. N. G. Fernando, C. J. —
Tho accused-appellant was convicted on threo counts of alleged breachesof the Notaries Ordinanco but he was acquitted on two other chargesfor similar breachos. Count one was based bn an allegation that theNotary permitted a party to a deed “ to sign tho duplicato of the deedbefore tho whole of the duplicate had been written ” in breach of Rule3 of Section 31. In regard to duplicates, Rule 3 prohibits a Notary frompermitting a duplicate to bo signed “ until the whole of tho deed or instru-ment shall have been written ”. While tho Rulo provides that a duplicatemay not be signed before the original instrument is executod, it docsnot clearly prohibit tho signature of an incomplete duplicato.
Counts 3 and 4 aro charges based on tho Notary having permitted theduplicate to bo signed by tho witnesses beforo tho wholo of the duplicatewas completed. I havo already pointed out that Rule 3 does not clearlydoclaro such an act to be an offence. The convictions aro quashed andthe accused is acquitted.
Appeal allowed.