1915.   Present   : ENNIS J.

THE KING v. JAYASINGHA.

1,087-P. C. Kandy, 97.

Criminal Procedure Code, section 152-Megistrate also District Judge-Acts as Magistrate even when acting under section 152 (3)-Has enhanced powers of punishment-Magistrate may try one offence summarily as Police Magistrate and another under section 152.

A Magistrate acting under section 152 acts throughout as Magistrate and not as District Judge. If the offence is one ordinarily triable by a District Court only the Magistrate may, if lie is also a District Judge and considers that the offence may properly be tried summarily, try the case summarily as Magistrate. The affect of the section is to give the Magistrate jurisdiction in cases in which be would not otherwise have jurisdiction, and in such cases he has enhanced powers of punishment.

If a Magistrate has jurisdiction to try an offence summarily, he could not under the third paragraph of section 152 get any enhanced powers of punishment; that paragraph applies only where the offence is one " not summarily triable by a Police Magistrate. "

A Police Magistrate may, in the same case, exercise jurisdiction for the trial of one offence as Magistrate and for the trial of another offence under section 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

IN this case the accused was charged and convicted on six counts connected with the disturbances in Kandy. There were two counts under section 140 of the Penal Code, one under section 142, one under section 144, one under sections 146 and 410, and one under section 148. The learned Magistrate was also a District Judge, and tried the case summarily under section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sentenced the accused to six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the first two counts, the sentences to run concurrently, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each of the other counts, the sentences to run concurrently.

Bawa, K.C. (with him A. St. V. Jayewardene and E. G. P. Jayetilleke), for appellant.

Schneider, Acting Solicitor-General (with him Grenier, Crown Counsel), for the Crown.

August 27, 1915. ENNIS J.-

[His Lordship set out the facts, and continued]:-

Objection has been taken that the Court could not exercise jurisdiction as a Police Court for the trial of one offence and juris-diction under section 152 as a District Court for the trial of another

offence. Further objection was taken that it could not exercise District Court powers of punishment for an offence over which it bad jurisdiction as a Police Court. In my opinion the first point is unsound and the second point right. A close perusal of section 152 shows that a Magistrate acting under section 152 acts throughout. as Magistrate and not as District Judge. If the offense is one which a Police Court can try summarily, the Magistrate is to exercise the jurisdiction and powers ordinarily vested in Police Courts. II the offence is one ordinarily triable by a District Court only (i.e., on the case being committed to the District Court for trial) the Magistrate may, if he is also a District Judge and considers that the offence may properly be tried summarily, try the case summarily as Magistrate. The effect of the section is to give the Magistrate jurisdiction in cases in which he would not otherwise have jurisdiction, and in such cases he has enhanced powers of punishment. This view of the matter is supported by a case decided by Lawrie A.C.J. and reported in Koch's Reports 19.

Several cases have been cited in support of the objections: W. Don Andris v. N. Hin Appuhamy,1[1 Br. 42.] Peiris v. Wijetunge,2[4 Bal. 85.] and an unreported case (527-P. C. Galle, 323[S. C. Mins., June 26, 1915.]). These cases were all cases of offences which were ordinarily triable by the Police Court as well as the District Court. The Magistrate had power to try them summarily as Police Magistrate, and if he considered his ordinary powers o