Present: Jayewardene A.J.

REX v. SEENYTAMBY.

117-D. C. (Crim.), Batticaloa,

Notary-Fixing of stamps-Duplicate sent to Registrar-Wilfully false statement-Attestation clause-Ordinance No. 1 of 1907, s. 33 (d).

Where a notary, who attested a deed stated in the attestation clause, as required by law, that stamps of the value of Rs. 42 were affixed to the duplicate deed, and where on receipt of the duplicate by the Registrar of Lands it was ascertained that only one stamp of the value of Rs. 2 was affixed to it.

Held, that the notary was guilty of having knowingly and wilfully made a false statement in the attestation to the deed within the meaning of section 33 (d) of the Notaries Ordinance.

APPEAL by a notary from a conviction under section 33 of the Notaries Ordinance, No. 1 of 1907. He was charged on three counts: first, with having permitted or suffered one A. C. Joseph to execute before him a deed No. 1,977 dated February 23, 1923, which was insufficiently stamped in breach of rule 6 of section 29 of the Ordinance; secondly, with having, in respect of the said deed, neglected to state the. correct number and value of the stamps affixed to the duplicate deed; thirdly, with having in violation of section 33 (d) of the Ordinance, knowingly and wilfully made a false statement in the attestation to the same deed No. 1,977 executed before him, namely-that five stamps of the value of Rs. 42 were affixed to the duplicate deed, while in fact only one stamp of the value of Rs. 2 was affixed. To counts one and two the accused pleaded guilty, but to the third count he pleaded not guilty. The District Judge convicted him on the third count also, and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment.

The evidence disclosed that the accused attested the deed in question on February 23, 1923, and stated in the attestation clause that five stamps of the value of Rs. 42 were affixed to the duplicate deed. On receipt of the duplicate by the Registrar of Lands, it was discovered that only one stamp of the value of Rs. 2 had been affixed. It was urged on behalf of the accused that he had followed a practice in vogue among notaries of not observing the rule which requires notaries to stamp deeds before they are executed by the parties. It was alleged that notaries were in the habit of fixing stamps on the duplicates just before they are sent to the Registrar of Lands, for which purpose a period of time extending to the 15th day of the following month was allowed. By an oversight the clerk

had failed to affix the necessary stamps before the duplicate of the deed was forwarded. It was contended on behalf of the accused that there was no proof that he made the false statement " knowingly and wilfully."

E. W. Jayewardene, K.C. (with him H. V. Perera), for appellant.

Vernon Grenier, C.C, for respondent.

December 17, 1024. Jayewardene A.J.-

This is an appeal by a notary who has been convicted under section 33," of the Notaries Ordinance, 1907, for knowingly and wilfully making a false statement in his attestation to a deed, and sentenced to six months', rigorous imprisonment. He was charged on three counts; first, with having permitted on suffered one A. C. Joseph to execute before him a deed No. 1,977 dated February 28, 1923, which was insufficiently stamped in breach of rule 6 of section 29 of the Notaries Ordinance; secondly, with having, in respect of the said deed, neglected to state the correct number and value of the stamps affixed to the duplicate deed, offences punish able under section 29 of the Notaries Ordinance, No. 1 of 1907; thirdly, with having in violation of section 33 (d) of the Notaries Ordinance knowingly and wilfully made a false statement in the attestation to the same deed No. 1,977 executed before him, to wit: that five stamps of the value of Rs. 42 were affixed to the duplicate of the said deed, while, in fact, only one stamp of the value of Rs. 2 was a