Back
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. RAJALINGAM
NLR31V157
[IN REVISION.]
1929. Present: Drieberg J.
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. RAJALINGAM et al.
P. C. Jaffna, 4,159.
Motor car-Using private car for carrying
passengers for hire-Burden of proof-Absence of explanation by accused-Evidence
Ordinance, s. 114.
The accused, who were the owner and the driver of a motor car licensed for
private use, were charged with employing it for carrying passengers for hire. It
was established by the prosecution that on several days the car was seen driven
by the chauffeur with several persons of different nationalities as passengers,
the owner himself being present on one occasion.
Held, that, in the absence of an explanation by the accused. the
Court was entitled to draw the presumption that the car was not being used for
the purpose for which it was licensed.
APPLICATION for
revision of a conviction by the Police- A Magistrate of Jaffna.
Ramachandra, in support.
Illangakoon, C.C., for the Crown.
July 15, 1929 DRIEBERG J.-
The first accused is the driver and the
petitioner the owner of a car which is licensed as a car for private use for the
conveyance of passengers. They were charged and convicted of using a car for a
purpose not authorized by its licence, i.e., carrying passengers for hire, in
breach of section 30 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, 1927. They were each
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5 or in default three day's simple imprisonment.
The case is before me on an application by the petitioner for revision.
These accused were originally charged with committing this offence on August 14,
1928. After the evidence of one witness had been recorded the date of the
offence was altered to " November 14, 1928, and thereafter. " The petitioner
complains that he was prejudiced by the vagueness of the charge, but the dates
of the several offences, November 14, 15, 20, 26, and December 6, were stated by
the first witness and the alteration was made on a later date ; the petitioner
was represented by Counsel and no objection was taken to or time asked to meet
the altered charge.
On November 14, 1928, P. S. Ratnam saw the car at 8 A.M. at Tinnevelly Junction
on the way from Point Pedro to Jaffna. It was driven by the first accused and
there were five persons, whose names were noted.
On November 15 the car was seen at 8.20 A.M.
by Sergeant Suppramaniam at '' Tinnevelly-Urampurai road '' being driven by the
first accused towards Jaffna. There were six persons in the Inspector car
besides the first accused. It was seen later at Anaipanthy of Police
Junction on its way to Jaffna with five persons in it ; four of these Rajalingam
were in the car at 8.20 A.M. Two had left and one was a new occupant, Samuel
Sinnetamby.
On November 20 it was seen at 3.45 P.M. at the Kaikula road being driven in the
direction of Point Pedro from Jaffna with seven passengers, whose names were
noted. Among them were a Moorman and a Chetty, the rest being Tamils.
On November 24 the car was seen at 4 P.M. at Puttur going towards Jaffna. The
petitioner was in the car with the first accused and there were five others who
were residents of villages 10, 12, 14, and 16 miles away from Jaffna. Their
names were noted. The ear was seen again at Nallur returning from Jaffna wish
three occupants, besides the two accused. None of them were in the car when it
was seen at 4 P.M.
The car was seen again on December 6 at 8 A.M. being driven by the first accused
with eight passengers in it. The movements of the car had been under observation
during all this time and on this occasion the passengers refused to give their
names to the police.
There was no evidence led for the defence, and it was argued for the accused
that they could not be convicted unless the occupants stated that they paid for
their conveyance.
The Police Magistrate convicted the accused in a brief judgment which has been
of no assistance to me. The contention of the defence is
