1918.    [In REvision.]

AIYA v. PENIYA.

Present: Shaw J.

P. C. Balapitiya, 45,764.

Deaf   and   dumb   accused-Unable   to   understand   the   nature    of   proceedings against him.

Where   an   accused   was   a   deaf    and       dumb   person,    who   cannot   be made   to   understand   the   nature   of   the  proceedings against him, and where the  Magistrate notwithstanding  heard  the  evidence against him and convicted him.

Held, that the conviction was illegal. Some person mast be present in Court skilled to interpret between the deaf mute and the  Court.

THE facts appear from the judgment. No appearance.

November 18, 1918.    Shaw J.-

This case has been referred to the Supreme Court by the Police Magistrate of Balapitiya.    The Magistrate states in his judgment that the accused is deaf and dumb, and cannot be made to under­stand the nature of the proceedings against him.    The Magistrate, notwithstanding this,  heard the evidence against the accused,  and having convicted him of theft, treated him as a first offender, and bound him over in Rs. 50 to be of good behaviour for a period of six months,   and  directed  his  mother  to stand  surety.  The  con­viction must be set aside, as no person can be tried for a criminal offence unless he be given an opportunity of making his defence.

Either some person must be present in Court skilled to interpret between the deaf mute and the Court, or, if the accused is imbecile by reason of his infirmity, he can be dealt with under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Set aside.