Sivaparkasapillai V. Supramaniam

 

1940     Present: Howard CJ.

 

SIVAPARKASAPILLAI v. SUPRAMANIAM.

705-M. C. Trincomalee, 8,276.

 

Jurisdiction-Magistrate assuming jurisdiction to try case summarily-Case involving complexity of law or fact-Discretion to try summarily subject to review-Objection not taken before Magistrate-Criminal Procedure Code.s. 152 (.3).

 

A Magistrate should not try an accused person summarily under section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code where the case involves any complexity of law, fact or evidence or where the case cannot be tried shortly and rapidly in point of matter and time.

 

The decision of the Magistrate to try an accused summarily is subject to review by the Supreme Court.

 

Silva v. Silva (7 N. L. R. 182) followed.

 

Objection to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate may be taken in the Supreme Court even where no objection was raised when the Magistrate assumed jurisdiction.

 

Ahamadu Levvai v. Abdut Caffoor (3 A. C. R. X.) not followed.

 

APPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Trincomalee.

 

R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with him M. Balasunderam), for the accused, appellant.

 

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him G. G. Ponnambalam and V. Arulambalam), for the complainant, respondent.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

December 10,1940. HOWARD C.J.-

 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate of Trincomalee dated July 29, 1940, convicting the appellant of falsification of accounts under section 467 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to a term of 18 months' rigorous imprisonment. Counsel for the appellant has submitted two grounds of appeal as follows: (1) that the case was not one that could properly be tried summarily by a Magistrate and (2) that the charge was defective inasmuch as it failed to comply with the provisions of section 179 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. With regard to the first ground an offence against section 467 of the Penal Code is not triable summarily. The Magistrate who was also the District Judge of Trincomalee in so trying the case purported to act under the provisions of section 152 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has stated that the offence might properly be tried summarily for the following reasons : - (1) the facts of the case are simple, (2) no points of law are involved, (3) the nature of the offence, (4) all the circumstances of the case, (5) it is expedient to do so, (6) it is economical to do so. The interpretation to be given to the word " properly " in section 152 (3) was considered by this Court in the case of Silva v. Silva[1 7 N. L. R. 188.] The following passage occurs in the judgment of Wendt J.: -

 

" Assuming in any given case that a maximum term of two years' imprisonme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document