048-NLR-NLR-V-34-WICKREMANAYAKE-v.-PERERA.pdf
J3ALTON J.—Wickremanayake v. Perera.
167
1932Present: Dalton J.
WICKREMANAYAKE v. PERERA.
314—P. C. Colombo, 36,020.
Notaries Ordinance—Failure to renew certificate—Acting as Notary beforerenewal—Certificate obtained under proviso has no retrospective effect—Ordinance tyo. 1 of 1907, s. 25.
Where a notary, who had renewed his certificate on October 14, 1931,had acted as a notary on October 2 and 6.
Held that that he was rightly convicted of having acted a notarywithout obtaining a certificate.
A certificate obtained under the proviso to section 25 of the NotariesOrdinance has no retrospective effect.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Colombo.
R. C. Fonseka, for accused, appellant.
Wendt, C.C., for Crown, plaintiff, respondent.
July 28. 1932. Dalton J.—
The appellant, a proctor and notary, has been convicted on two countson charges of having acted as a notary without having obtained a certi-ficate for the year 1931 as required by section 25 of Ordinance No. 1of 1907. The dates of the alleged offences were October 2 andOctober 6, 1931. The prosecution was duly authorized by the Registrar-General. The evidence shows that the appellant renewed his certificatebn October 14. The defence put forward in reply to the charges is thatthe certificate, under the provisions of section 25, is retrospective.The Magistrate was unable to agree with that contention, and in myopinion he was correct in his interpretation of the section.
It is conceded that no decided case to support the argument putforward on behalf of the appellant can be found, but I was referred toDias v. Rajapakse'. It is suggested by counsel for appellant that thecase to some extent supports his argument, but I regret I cannot agreewith him. If it can be said to have any bearing on the point now raised,it seems to me to be rather against his contention.
Section 25 of the Ordinance allows two months’ grace in obtaining ayearly certificate, but proceedings could be taken in respect of any actdone by the notary as notary within these two months, if the certificateTor the year be not applied for and granted by March 1. I am unable toagree that a certificate obtained under the further provision in the sectionhas any retrospective effect. To interpret the section in such a waywould be to read into it something which to my mind is not there. If,however, the circumstances that give rise to the delay are put before theCourt, there is no reason why they should not be taken into considerationin deciding what sentence should be passed.
In this case appellant has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 oneach count, or in default to undergo six weeks’ simple imprisonment.It is most important in the interests of the public that the provisions of
* 12 K. L. R. 38.
168
DALTON J.—Wickremanayake v. Perera.
the Ordinance should be strictly observed. The duties devolving .onnotaries are most responsible and many of their clients have necessarilyto put implicit faith in them for the due and proper performance of thework entrusted to them. The appellant is, in addition, a proctor. I seeno reason to interfere with the sentences passed in this case. It isrepresented to me, however, by his counsel, that there are eleven othercases pending in the Police Court against the appellant, waiting decisionin this appeal. Counsel has given voice to the fear that, in the event ofthis appeal being upheld, appellant may be fined Rs. 50 in respect of eachcharge in those eleven cases, which he states cover thirty-five deedsattested by appellant prior to the obtaining of his certificate or licence.I can only express the opinion that, unless there are circumstances inthose cases which this case now before me has not brought to light, theMagistrate is hardly likely to do that.
This appeal is dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
Affirmed.