Government Agent North Central Province V. Appuhamy

1912 Present: Ennis J. 1912.

GOVERNMENT AGENT, NORTH-CENTRAL PROVINCE v.
APPUHAMY.

858-P. C. Anuradhapura, 27,191.

Summary trial-Long postponements irregular-Failure of justice- Criminal Procedure Code, as. 188, 289, 425.

It is a denial of justice to postpone a summary case for an unreasonable length of time, for reasonable speed is essential in a summary trial.

The answer to the question whether an adjournment is unreasonably long would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

THE accused, who was charged with having cleared land at the disposal of the Crown without permit, claimed the land on a copper sannas. The Magistrate made the following order on June 18, 1906:-" Send sannas and case both to the Government Agent. Accused to appear when noticed." No further steps were taken until January 10, 1911. After a series of adjournments the case was finally heard on November 11, 1912, and the Magistrate held that the sannas was a forgery, and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

H. A. Jayewardene (with him Talaivasingham), for the accused, appellant.-The Magistrate had no power to make an order postponing the case indefinitely or for an unreasonable length of time.

No steps were taken in this case after June 18, 1906, till January 10, 1911. This being a summary case the Magistrate should not have adjourned the case, except for a reasonable time. Counsel referred to sections 188 and 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The case was one for the Civil Court. The evidence shows that the accused acted bona fide throughout. This is practically an action by the Crown to establish title to a disputed land. The accused should have been sued in the Civil Court, and not prosecuted in the Criminal Court.

Obeyesekere, C.C., for the respondent.-The Court had jurisdiction to entertain the charge (Ordinance No. 10 of 1885 section 4). The offence has been clearly proved. [Ennis J.-Are not these long adjournments irregular?] The adjournments were made in the interests of the accused himself. Moreover, he did not complain of the delay at any time. The section gives the Magistrate the power to postpone a case for such time as he may consider reasonable. [Ennis J.-No Court will say that a postponement for five years is reasonable.] If your Lordship is satisfied that a case has been made out against the accused, section 425 would cure the irregularity. [Counsel took time to submit authority. Later, he cited 417-P. C. Anuradhapura, 27.957.1[S. C. Min., July 29,1910.]]

Cur. adv. vult.

December 20, 1912. ENNIS J.-

In this case the accused was charged in March, 1906, in the Police Court of Anuradhapura, at the instance of the Government Agent, with having cleared in December, 1905, certain land at the disposal of the Crown contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 10 of 1885.

The case came on at various times between May 28, 1906, and June 18, 1906, when the accused produced a copper sannas from the possession of his uncle. The sannas had not been registered. An order was then made: " Send sannas and case both to the Government Agent. Accused to appear when noticed." The next entry in the journal under date June 21, 1906, is: " Case sent to Government Agent."

It is to be observed that the Government Agent is the complainant in the case. No further steps in the matter were taken until January 10, 1911, when there is a note in the journal: " This case having been returned by the Government with the request to dispose of as usual, parties noticed for January 31, 1911."

After a series of adjournments there is a note in the journal under date September 18, 1912: " Accused present on summons; admits clearing." The case was finally heard on November 11, 1912, when the question, of the title of the accused to the land was thoroughly investigated.

The learned Police Magistrate in a very full and able judgment found that the sannas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document