Present  : Lascelles C.J. and Ennis J.    1914.

RAMASAMY v. CHETTY.

55-D. C. (Inty.) Kandy, 1,579.

Indian cooly-Protection from arrest for debt-Ordinance No. 9 of 1909, s. 19-Insolvent-Certificate in form R withdrawing protection from arrest.

The protection from arrest for debt under section 19 of the Indian Coolies Ordinance, No. 9 of 1909, extends to an Indian cooly from whom protection from arrest has been withdrawn under the Insolvency Ordinance.

THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.

Bawa, K.C., for the insolvent, appellant.-The appellant is an Indian cooly, and is therefore not liable to be arrested for debt by virtue of the provisions of section 19 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1909. In cases of arrest for debt, it is the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which apply, and not the Insolvency Ordinance. It was held by the Pull Court in Salgado v. Peiris1[(1909) 12 N. L. R. 379.] that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applied as to appeals in insolvency cases.

In In re Pieris2[(1900) 1 Br. 1.] an insolvent who was returning from Court after acquittal on a criminal charge was held to be not liable to be arrested under a warrant issued under section 152 of the Insolvency Ordinance.

It was held that the provisions of section 834 of the Civil Procedure Code applied to such cases. The object of enacting section 19 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1909 is to exempt agricultural labourers from arrest (see statement of object and reasons in Tambyah's Planters' Manual 131). The object would be defeated if the labourer were liable to be arrested under the Insolvency Ordinance.

Counsel also cited 33 L. J. C. P. 109, Maxwell 244.

Wadsworth, for the petitioner, respondent.-The certificate in form R is issued when the Court is satisfied that the insolvent has committed offences referred to in section 151 of the Ordinance. The arrest under the Insolvency Ordinance is in the nature of a punishment. Section 154 makes special provision for imprisonment for one year. Arrests under the Insolvency Ordinance have nothing to do with the Civil Procedure Code. The two Ordinances are independent of each other. Counsel referred In re W. H. de Vos.3[2 Br. 357.]

Cur. adv. vult.

130

June 19, 1914. LASCELLES C.J.-

This appeal raises the question whether an uncertificated insolvent, who is an estate kangani, is protected from arrest for debt by section 19 of the Indian Coolies Ordinance, No. 9 of 1909. The section runs as follows :-

From and after the commencement of this Ordinance no kangani, subordinate kangani, or labourer shall be liable to arrest under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1889, or in execution of a decree for money."

The learned District Judge has held that the insolvent was arrested under section 152 of the Insolvency Ordinance, and not under the Civil Procedure Code, and that he is therefore not protected by the above-mentioned section.

The only decided case which appears to have any bearing on the question is In re W. H. de Vos.1[2 Br. 357.] which is directly in point, and a strong authority in favour of the appellant.

The insolvent in that case was in the same situation as the insolvent; here. A certificate of conformity had been refused. A creditor had obtained a certificate under section 152 of the Insolvency Ordinance and taken out execution against the insolvent's person. The insolvent's case was that he had been arrested in contravention of section 366 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was contended by the creditor that the arrest was not under the Civil Procedure Code, but under section 35 of the Insolvency Ordinance, and that section 366 of the Code did not apply. Bonser C.J., in dealing with this contention, said: " In my opinion the District Judge rightly repelled the contention and held that this was not such an arrest under warrant of Court as is referred to in that section, but was an arrest under an ordinary writ of executi