1937 Present : Abrahams C.J., Maartensz and
Soertsz JJ.

SIVASAMPU v. JUAN APPU.

620-P. C. Chilaw, 1,368.

Charge-Offence laid under by-law or regulation-Publication in Gazette- Proof of rule-Evidence Ordinance, s. 57-Interpretation Ordinance, No. 21 of 1901, s. 11.

Where a charge is laid under a statutory rule, regulation, or by-law which is required by law to be published in the Government Gazette, the prosecution is not bound to produce the Gazette in which the rule or regulation or by-law appears in proof thereof in order to establish the charge.

There would be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law if in the complaint or report to Court there is a reference to the Gazette in which the rule invoked appears.

Marambe v. Kiri Appu (2 C. L. W. 122) and Inspector of Police v. Punchirala (5 C. L. W. 38) overruled.

THE accused was charged with having failed to affix a board bearing the name of the owner legibly painted in white on a black ground to the right side of the tent in breach of section 7A of the by-laws framed under section 18 of the Vehicles Ordinance, No. 4 of 1916, and published in Government Gazette on August 17, 1917. The summons was issued and the accused pleaded to the charge. At the conclusion of the trial, the defence brought to the notice of Court that the actual Gazette was not produced. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in view of the decision in Marambe v. Kiri Appu [1 (1932) 2 C. L. W. 122]

The complainant appealed with the sanction of the Attorney-General. Moseley J. who heard the appeal referred the case to a Bench of three Judges in view of the conflicting decisions.

Ilangakoon, K.C. A.-G. (with him Crossette-Thambiah, C.C.), for complainant, appellant.-This case has been referred to a Bench of three Judges by Moseley J. to decide whether the Gazette containing the by-law should be produced when a person is prosecuted for a breach of the by-laws. There has been a considerable conflict of opinion on this point.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-Are you going to argue that the Gazette need not be proved ?]

Yes. The fact that the learned Magistrate did issue the summons shows that he had taken sufficient notice of the Gazette.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-There is this difference, namely, that the Courts must take judicial notice of the Ordinances, but someone must prove the regulation.]

The Evidence Ordinance says that the Courts of Law must take judicial notice of laws, regulations, &c, when they are published.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-There must be the publication. It is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself that there was a law before issuing summons. ]

That is so. If he was not satisfied he can call for it. After taking sufficient notice, he cannot say that the complainant did not produce the Gazette. All Gazettes are available in Court. So long as the place where

the rules are is specified, it is sufficient. They need not be produced in every case. Considering the number of excise cases, it would be an impossible task to produce them always.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-Suppose they are not given the force of law. Then they have to be produced before the Magistrate.]

In England it has been held that the whole Gazette must be produced. Section 11 (1) (e) of the Interpretation Ordinance, No. 21 of 1901, covers this case.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-What about sub-section (f) ? Does not that say that it must be produced ?]

That is if the Magistrate is not aware of it. Publication is notice of the existence of the laws. Laws published in the Gazette must be taken to be known. Once the particulars of the offence, the rule and the number and date of Gazette are given, it is sufficient evidence for section 78 of the Evidence Ordinance.

[ABRAHAMS C.J.-Would it be judicial notice or would it be that his having issued summons shows that he had looked into it ?]

Under section 57 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance, the rules need not be published.

[SOERTSZ J.-