KE ON EM AN J.—Wilbanda and Kumarasamy S. I.
4944Present: Keuneman J.
WILBANDA et al., Appellants, and KUMARASAMY S.I..
3132—'M. C. Kurunegala, 12,888.
Jurisdiction—Charges of robbery and hurt—Conviction of hurt by Magistrate-Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. 198) s. 90.
Where the accused were charged by a Sub-Inspector of Police in theMagistrate’sCourtundertwocounts, first under section380of the
Penal Codewithrobberyandnext of causing simple hurtundersection
314 of thePenalCode,andthe Magistrate, while acquitting theaccused
of robbery, convicted them of causing simple hurt.
Held, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case.
A Sub-Inspector of Police is a public officer within the meaning of theproviso tosection90 oftheVillage Communities Ordinance.
PPEAXj from a conviction by the Magistrate of Kurunegala.
R. 1j. Pereira, K.C. (with him R. G. C. Pereira), for accused, appellants.
H. W. R. Weerasooriya, G.C., for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 7, 1944. Keuntemajj J.—
In this case these accused were charged under two counts, first unde:section 380 of the Penal Code with robbery of a purse containing caslRs. 66 belonging to Appuhamy, and next under section 314 of the Pena
1 41 N. L. R. 233.
2 IS C. L. W. 83.
KEUNjEMAN J.—Wilbanda and Kumarasamy S. I.
Code with voluntarily causing simple hurt to Appuhamy. The prose-cution was instituted by C. Kumarasamy, Sub-Ifispector of Police,Kurunegala. The accused were acquitted of the charge under section 380,but convicted of the charge under section 314.
The objection is taken in appeal that as regards the offence under section314 the Village Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction, and that the Magis-trate had no jurisdiction.
Clearly Wilbawa the place of the offence is outside the Urban Councillimits, and within the jurisdiction of the Village Tribunal of Pilessa.
The Magistrate considered this point, and held that, as he did notfind the charge of robbery to be false, but merely gave the accused thebenefit of the doubt, the jurisdiction of his court was not ousted. Thisargument cannot be supported. As long as the accused were acquittedof the offence of robbery, it does not matter on what grounds they wereacquitted.
Counsel for appellant relied on the case of Inspector of Police> Negombo,v. Jacolis Silva and others1. In that case the accused appellant andthree others were charged by the Inspector under section 380. Thiscount failed, but instead of acquitting the accused, the Magistrate, inspite of objections by accused’s counsel, framed a charge under section 314.The accused was convicted of the charge. In this connection Soertsz J.said—
“ But the Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction, because ‘ this is aPolice case ’. In my opinion, it is a complete answer to the contentionto say that the Police prosecution was one for robbery, not one forcausing hurt. The Police would, most probably, not have prosecutedin the Police Court, if the complaint brought to them was one ofcausing hurt.”
Crown Counsel seeks to distinguish this case. In the present casethe Police Inspector tendered charges both of robbery and of simple hurt.Both counts were included in the report. Crown Counsel contendsthat this case falls within the proviso to section 90 of the Village Com-munities Ordinance (Cap. 198) as amended in 1940-
I think it is clear that the Bub-Inspector is a public officer within themeaning of that Ordinance (see Siyadoris et al. v. Tam by*).In this
case the Sub-Inspector has deliberately included a charge under section314, and the argument, of Soertsz J. does not apply to this case Ihold that the Sub-Inspector is not precluded from prosecuting theaccused before the Magistrate on this count, and that the jurisdiction ofthe Magistrate is not ousted.
The appeals are dismissed.
1 C. L. Journal (Notes) p. 44.
2 45 N. L. R. 141.
WILBANDA et al., Appellants, and KUMARASAMY S. I. , Respondent