Re JAYAWARDANA.

Notary Public-Conduct of-Inquiry under s. 18 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1877 as amended by s. 2 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1900-" Offence"-" Or otherwise "-Application for writ of prohibition.

Where an information was laid under section 18 of the Ordinance No. 2 of 1877 (section 2 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1900) before a District Judge that a notary public had been concerned in several criminal cases, that he was not possessed of property, that he had writs out against him, that he was keeping himself in concealment, and that he made a false affidavit in a case in which he was defendant, and when the Judge was proceeding to inquire under section 18 into the matters alleged in the information,-

Held, on an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition against him, that such matters could not be the subject of inquiry under section 18, that the allegation that the notary was concerned in criminal cases, that he was not possessed of property, that there were writs of execution against him, and that he was keeping himself in concealment, were not " offences" against any statute or other law of Ceylon; and that though giving false evidence before a competent Court was an offence against the Penal Code, yet it was not intended by the Legislature to give to the officers named in section 18 power to inquire into such offences committed by notaries outside the sphere of their duties.

Per MONCERIFF, J.-When information is received by the persons mentioned in the section that the notary has committed an offence those persons may then proceed to inquire into the " matter" of the offence. They are not to adjudicate upon the offence itself, but to investigate the material from which it springs; and then, according as they find certain elements, a report may be made to the Governor, who is empowered, with the advice of the Executive Council, to cancel the notary's warrant or to suspend him.

The action which is to follow the inquiry is dependent upon whether the inquiry shows (1) gross misconduct on the part of the notary in discharging his duties, or (2) incapacity to discharge them with advantage to the public.

The inquiry would not be directed to the criminal aspect of the notary's conduct, but to the " matter of the alleged offence " with a view to seeing whether the notary has misconducted himself in respect of his duties.

THIS was an application to the Supreme Court by one Mr. Jayawardana, a notary public, for a writ of prohibition against the District Judge of Negombo forbidding him to inquire into the matter contained in an information received from the Assistant Government Agent of Chilaw against Mr. Jayawardana, under section 18 of the Ordinance No. 2 of 1877 (section 2 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1900), which runs as follows:-

" (1) On information received by the Registrar-General, or by the Government Agent, Assistant Government Agent, District Judge, or Commissioner of requests, within whose local jurisdiction any notary resides, that an offence has been committed by the notary,

it shall be lawful for such Registrar-General, Government Agent, Assistant Government Agent, District Judge, or Commissioner of requests to inquire into the matter of the alleged offence, and upon proof to his satisfaction of gross misconduct in the discharge of the duties of his office by such notary, or of such notary having proved himself to be incapable of discharging them with advantage to the public, or of his having so conducted himself by repeated breaches of any of the rules contained in or made under this Ordinance, or otherwise, that he ought not to be any longer entrusted with the performance of the said duties, to report the same in writing, together with the evidence taken by such Registrar-General, Government Agent, Assistant Government Agent, District Judge, or Commissioner of Requests, to the Governor; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Govern