Present: Dalton J.

ASHTON v. CROOS et al

704, 704A-P. C. Colombo, 27,641.

    Opium-Landing of opium from ship by launch-Importation-Ordinance No. 5 of 1910, s. 4 (1) (a).

The landing of an article, which was brought by ship from overseas, amounts to importation within the meaning of section 4 (1) (a) of Ordinance No. 5 of 1910.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Colombo.

H. V. Perera (with Ponnambalam), for appellants.

Illangakoon, C.C., for respondent.

February 1, 1929. DALTON J.-

The appellants, Anthony Croos and Mallis Appu, were, at the date of the commission of the offences charged (September 7, 1928), coxswain and driver respectively of the Customs motor launch " Wasp ". They have both been convicted of the following two offences:-

(1) Being jointly concerned in the importation into Ceylon of 4 lb. of opium in H. M. Customs launch " Wasp " in contravention of section 4 (1) (a) of the Opium Ordinance, No. 5 of 1910.

(2) Jointly transporting 25 lb. of ganja in H. M. Customs launch " Wasp " from the ss. Bamora to the Lake Canal Basin contrary to the provisions of section 43 (a) of the Excise Ordinance, No. 8 of 1912.

The first ground of appeal is to the effect that the Magistrate should not have accepted the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, including Soris, Sergeant Beevers, and Assistant Preventive Officer Perkins. I do not think it necessary to detail their evidence here. It is sufficient to state that after hearing all that Counsel for appellants has to say I am quite satisfied that the Magistrate was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the ganja and opium found early on the morning of September 7, near the bridge over the Lake Canal, as the witnesses depose, was conveyed in the launch from the ss. Bamora by the man Martin who had been picked up by the launch at the Prince of Wales Jetty after it had dropped Mr. Perkins who directed it to proceed to its usual place at the

Passenger Jetty. The launch was then in charge of the first accused and driven by the second accused. The Police Magistrate has, before accepting the evidence of the witness Soris, who was the sternman in the launch and to all intents and purposes an accomplice, rightly looked to see if there is any corroboration of his story that he can accept. In his reasons for his judgment he details the various points upon which Soris has been corroborated. There are a few points upon which Soris' evidence is contradictory, but I have no doubt on the main points the Magistrate was entitled to accept his evidence. The suggestion that Sergeant Beevers had fabricated his evidence with respect to the landing of Martin from a launch near the bridge in the Lake Canal was hardly worthy of Counsel. No such suggestion seems to have been made to the witness during the trial and the watcher in the canal yard actually reported at 8 -30 A.M. next morning that he had heard the blast of a whistle from the main road when a launch had gone into and out of the canal. This was undoubtedly the whistle of Beevers when he was chasing Martin. There was no possibility that Beevers and the watchman had met prior to 8 o 30, nor was any such suggestion ever made.

It was next urged that accepting all the facts deposed to by the witnesses with regard to the part played by the launch and the two accused, they do not disclose any offence. It was specially urged that there was nothing to show that the accused, or at any rate the driver, knew what Martin was conveying ashore. I was referred to Attorney-General v. Rodriguesz.1[1 19 N.L.R. 65.] on that point one has to bear in mind the hour of the night when the journey took place, the dropping of the preventive officer, the journey to pick up Martin, the trip to the ss. Bamora, the method of receipt of the bags or parcels which turned out to be opium and ganja through a port hole into the launch, the rapid jour