1937  Present : Abrahams C.J.

WIJEYSURIYA v. DALPADATU.

420-P. C. Panadure, 41,828.

Notaries Ordinance-Failure to transmit duplicates of deed-Duty of the Registrar-General-Failure of notary to give an explanation-Ordinance No. 1 of 1907, s. 29, Rules 24 and 33-Amending Ordinance No. 10 of 1934, s. 6 (d).

The proviso to section 29 of the Notaries Ordinance does not impose an absolute duty on the Registrar-General to give a notary who has failed to transmit to the Registrar of Lands duplicates of documents in terms of rule 24, a further period of time within which he may comply with the requirements of the rule.

Under rule 33 a Notary is bound to give an explanation in writing of any irregularity, error, or omission which the Registrar-General discovers or thinks he has discovered, and which appears to him to be a breach of the law.
Failure to give an explanation is an offence under section 29 of the Notaries Ordinance.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Panadure. H. A. Koattegoda (with him Dodwell Gunawardena), for appellant.

M. F. S. Pulle, C.C., for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult

 September 29, 1937. ABRAHAMS C.J.-

The appellant, a Notary Public, was convicted in the Police Court of Panadure of the offence of having failed to transmit or deliver to the Registrar of Lands, Kalutara, the duplicates of deeds drawn and attested by him during the month of December, 1936, on or before January 15, 1937, as required by rule 24 of section 29 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1907. He was fined for that offence Rs. 30. He was also convicted at the same time of the offence of having failed to give an explanation as regards his failure to transmit these duplicates as required by rule 33 of the same Ordinance, and he was fined Rs. 20. The appellant does not dispute the facts of the case. He admits that he failed to transmit the duplicates by the date mentioned. He also admits that when he was called upon for an explanation of his failure he gave no explanation. He pleads, however, that in law he did not commit either offence.

Rule 24 above mentioned reads as follows : -

" He shall deliver or transmit to the Registrar of Lands of the district in which he resides the following documents, so that they shall reach the Registrar on or before the fifteenth day of every month, viz., the duplicate of every deed or instrument (except wills and codicils) executed or acknowledged before or attested by him during the preceding month, together with a list in duplicate, signed by him, of all such deeds or instruments, which list shall be substantially in the form F in Schedule II. hereto, and he shall at the same time forward a similar list so signed by him to the Registrar-General. Provided, however, that in the case of wills and codicils only the number and date of the document shall be inserted in such list".

Rule 33 above mentioned reads as follows : -

" He shall, in regard to any irregularity, error, or omission discovered or alleged to have been discovered in the discharge of his duties as notary, and which appears to the Registrar-General to be a violation of the law, give an explanation in writing when required by the Registrar-General or by the Registrar of Lands under the order of the Registrar-General, but such explanation shall in no case be called for after the expiry of twenty-four months from the date of the commission of such irregularity or error, or of such omission".

The penalty provision under which the appellant was convicted occurs at a later point in section 29 and also reads as follows : -

" And if any notary shall act in violation of or shall disregard or neglect to observe any of the rules and regulations contained in this section that are binding upon him, he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, in addition to any civil liability he may incur thereby ".