JANSEN v. ARNOLIS.

 P. C., Colombo, 4,042.

(Itinerating Police Magistrate, Western Province.)

Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 229 and 403-Ordinance No. 22 of 1890, repealing Chapter XIX. of Criminal Procedure Code-Right of appeal where accused has pleaded guilty-Mode of recording admission of offence by accused-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 220-" Additional Police Court"-status and powers of Magistrates of one Court sitting apart from each other-Ordinance No. 1 of 1889, ss. 55, 56, 57-Exercise of wise discretion in entertaining complaints.

Since the repeal of section 229 of the Criminal Procedure Code, section 403 has become inapplicable to the procedure provided by section 220 of the amending Ordinance No. 22 of 1890, and now there is no statutory bar to an appeal by an accused person who has been convicted in a Police Court summarily upon his own admission of guilt.

The terms of section 220, as regards the mode of recording the admis­sion of the accused, must be strictly complied with. It is not enough to record that " he pleaded guilty to the charge," but the exact words used by him should be set forth.

Ordinance No. 1 of 1889, sections 55,56, and 57, does not admit of any such Court as " the Additional Police Court of," as if each of the several Magistrates whom the Governor may appoint to a Court consti­tuted a distinct and independent Court.

The proceedings before each such Magistrate should be intituled " In the Police Court of (naming the division), holden at , before, one of the Magistrates of the said Court."

There is no objection to one Magistrate of a Court entertaining a complaint and issuing process to compel the attendance of an accused person before a Police Court, and the inquiry or trial being undertaken by another Magistrate of the same Court; nor is it objectionable for one Magistrate to admit to bail a person who has been dealt with by another Magistrate of the same Court, or to perform a purely ministerial act like the communicating to an accused the order of the Supreme Court in appeal, and to give effect to such order.

But where one Magistrate has commenced to hear a case, he most continue it to the end, unless it falls within section 89 of the Ordinance No. 1 of 1889.

Observations on the exercise of wise discretion in entertaining plaints.

THE facts of this case appear fully in the judgment of the -L Chief Justice.

Bawa, appeared for the accused appellant.

Layard, A.-G., was heard as amicus curia.

18th October, 1895. BONS