( 321 )
Present: Dalton J.
WEERAKKODY v. DE SILYA.589—P. C. Kegalla, 8,476.
Village Tribunal—Jurisdiction—Two offences—One within and otherwithout Village Tribunal jurisdiction-—Sanitary Board*—VillageCommunities Ordinance, No. 9 of 1924—Penal Code, ss. S32and 348.
A Village Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction within the limitsof a Sanitary Board.
The accused was charged before the Police Court with twooffences, one of which was within the jurisdiction of the* Court,and the other within the exclusive jurisdiction of the VillageTribunal. He was acquitted of the former offence and convictedof the latter.
Held, that the Police Court- had no jurisdiction to try the latteroffence.
Where the second offence forms part of the first offence, differentconsiderations would apply.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate ofKegalla.
H. V. Perera (with Basnayahe), for appellant.
Navaratnam, for respondent.
January 26, 1928. Dalton J.—
This matter originally came before me on December 12 lastwhen I made an order requesting further information from theMagistrate. From the information now supplied it appears thatthere is a Village Tribunal at the place where the offence here wascommitted, but owing to the fact that that place is within thelimits of a Sanitary Board, the Magistrate states the VillageTribunal has, for that reason, no jurisdiction. There is now nodoubt, having regard to what the Magistrate says is the meaningof the passage in his decision referred to in my previous order,that the objection as to jurisdiction was taken in the lower Court,and the point was dealt with by the Police Magistrate.
The appellant was charged with using criminal force on thecomplainant “ by shoving him out of a bus,” an offence punishableby section 343 of the Penal Code, and further, with wrongfullyli
( 322 )
restraining him, an offence punishable by section 832 of the PenalDalton J. Code. He was convicted on the first count, and acquitted on thesecond count. Under the Village Communities Ordinance, No. 9 ofv,1924, the Village Tribunal has jurisdiction (section 55) to try the
de Silva offence of which appellant has been convicted, but not the offenceof which he has been acquitted. Section 61 provides that thatjurisdiction is exclusive, unless any Ordinance provides to thecontrary. Ordinance No. 18 of 1892 provides for the institution ofSanitary Boards, and it is clear Bambukkana, the place of theoffence, is within the limits of such a Board. Section 36 providesthat rules made under the Village Communities Ordinance, 1889,shall not be in force in any town or village subject to OrdinanceNo. 18 of 1892. These rules are kept in force by the provisionsof section 32 of the Village Communities Ordinance, 1924. TheMagistrate, it would seem, has interpreted section 36 as meaningthat no Village Tribunal has any jurisdiction within the limitsof a Sanitary Board. The Village Communities Ordinance, 1889.provides for certain rule-making powers, and all that section 36of Ordinance No. 18 of 1892 enacts is that such rules shall not be inforce within the limits of a Sanitary Board. If -the act done is acontravention of such a rule, the rule is not in force in such anarea. It is quite clear, however, on reference to section 9e (4) ofOrdinance No. 18 of 1892, that there may still be breaches of regula-tions under this Ordinance which are triable by a Village Tribunal,and there is nothing in the Ordinance opposed to the jurisdiction ofa Village Tribunal in respect of an ^offence against the PenalCode, if such offence is triable by such a tribunal. I see no reasontherefore why the Village Tribunal at Bambukkana was preventedfrom exercising jurisdiction for the offence of which accused hasbeen convicted. By section 61 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1924 thatjurisdiction would seem to be exclusive.
It has been suggested to me, however, on the authority ofthe decision in 8. G. No. 668—P. G. Dandegamuwa, No. 21,428inasmuch as the offence of using criminal force is closely connectedwith the offence of wrongful restraint, and both offences are partof one and the same transaction, and as the latter offence waswithin the jurisdiction of the Police Court, therefore the offenceof using criminal force was also rightly tried in that Court. Thelearned Judge there does say that in respect of this contention, hewould hold the Police Court had jurisdiction to try the chargein respect of which the Village Tribunal had jurisdiction, but Iam not prepared to say that that case was definitely decided uponthat ground, for he clearly states earlier in his judgment that itwas probable, from what appeared on the record, that the accusedwas not a person who was subject to the jurisdiction of the Village
1 S. C. Minutes of November 3, 1927.
( m )Tribunal but was an ’* excepted person ” (ride section 60, OrdinanceNo. 9 of 1924). It seems to ire, so far as the case before me is con- Damon J.ceraed, that the only offence found to have been committed was r“TTone within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Village Tribunal. I Vmam not prepared to hold that, because that offence is alleged to bede Silva
closely connected with another offence charged but which it hasbeen found has not been committed, the Police Court havingjurisdiction to try the offence which has not been committed, thePolice Court has jurisdiction to try the offence which has beencommitted. Having found the accused not guilty of the offencewhich it is admitted he has jurisdiction to try, the Police Magistratehad remaining an offence over which the Viiiage Tribunal hadexclusive jurisdiction. He was therefore without jurisdiction.
If the offence in respect of which the Police Magistrate had juris-diction and the Village Tribunal admittedly had not jurisdiction,had been committed by the accused, and the second offence wasin fact found to be part and parcel of the iiist offence, then possiblydifferent considerations might apply. That remains to be con-sidered. The accused here has been found to have committedone offence, an act by itself, and in respect of that offence the VillageTribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. I am not prepared tohold that exclusive jurisdiction has been ousted, because anotheroffence, in respect of which the Village Tribunal has no jurisdiction,which is found not to have been committed is tacked on to thecharge even if that be done in good faith.
WEERAKKODY v. DE SILVA