1916. Present : Ennis J. and Schneider A.J.

THE KING v. HARMANIS et al.

142 and 143-D. C. (Crim.) Kalutara, 2,985.

Conviction for removal of timber without a permit under Forest Ordinance, No. 16 of 1907-Subsequent charge under s. 367 of the fiscal Code-Interpretation Ordinance, s. 8-Autrefois convict.

A person convicted under the Forest Ordinance for removing timber without a permit may be again tried and punished for theft of the same timber.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for appellants.

Garvin, S.-G., for the Crown.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 25, 1916. ENNIS J.-

The question referred to a Court of two Judges was whether a person who had been convicted or acquitted under the Forest Ordinance for removing timber without a permit could be again tried and punished for theft of the same timber. Mr. A. St. V. Jayewardene argued that section 8 of the Interpretation Ordinance, No. 21 of .1901, is a bar. That section runs: -

Where any act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more laws, whether either or any of such laws came into force before or after the commencement of this Ordinance, the offend