1946 Present: HOWARD C.J.

DIAS, Appellant, and WIJETUNGE, respondent.

1,271-M. C. Colombo, 4,967.

Evidence-Charge of cheating-Proof of intention by evidence of similar acts-Evidence of System-penal Code, s. 400-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 14 and 15.

Where the accused was charged with cheating and the complainant, in order to prove fraudulent intention on the part of the accused, led evidence of a false representation made by the accused to another person in connection with another transaction-

Held, that the evidence of the false representation was not admissible under section 14 of the Evidence Ordinance unless there was a similar representation made ion the transaction which was the subject-matter of the charge.

Held, further, that in order to prove system under section 15 of the Evidence Ordinance evidence of one similar transaction alone is not sufficient.

APPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate?s Court of Colombo.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him H. W. Jayewardene and C. E. L. Wickremesinghe), for the accused, appellant.

L. A. Rajapakse, K. C. (with him D. A. Jayasuriya and G. T. Samarawickreme), for the complainant, respondent.