[FULL BENCH.]

1916 Present: Wood Renton C.J. and Ennis and De Sampayo JJ.

SHOCKMAN v. BALAYA.

954-P, C. Gampola, 10,075.

Sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fins-May fine be levied after accused had undergone imprisonment?-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 312.

Where a person was sentenced to pay a fine, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term, and where he underwent the prescribed term of imprisonment, it is not competent to issue a warrant for the levy of the amount of the fine.

The levying of the fine and the carrying out of the sentence of imprisonment are alternatives.

THE facts appear  from the judgment.

Bartholomeusz (with him Naganathan), for accused, appellant.

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

October 24, 1916. WOOD RENTON C.J.-

This case raises an important question under section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant was convicted in the Police Court of Gampola of having been in the illegal possession of an excisable article, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six weeks. He did not pay the fine, and duly underwent