Back
KING v. GIRIGORIS APPUHAMY
NLR47V499
1946 Present: Nagalingam A. J
THE KING v. GIRIGORIS APPUHAMY
9-M. C. Gampaha, 27, 953
Bail-Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6),
s. 31-Scope of-Accused not brought to trial owing to ill-health-Effect of
such postponement.
The accused was indicated on a charge of murder. He was
committed on July 16, 1945, and a copy of the indictment was served on him on
December 27, 1945. There were criminal Sessions between July 10, 1945, and
October 9, 1945, between October 10, 1945, and January 9, 1946, between January
10, 1946, and March 19, 1946 and between March 20, 1946 and July 9, 1946.
In an application for bail under
section 31 of the Courts Ordinance-
Held, that the first criminal sessions after the date
of his commitment at which the accused might properly have been tried was the
one held between March 20, 1946 and July 9, 1946.
Held, further, that the fact that the accused was not
bought to trail at that sessions owing to his ill-health was good cause for the
crown to rely upon in opposing the application for bail.
APPLICATION
for bail made before the Assize Court under section 31 of the Courts Ordinance.
C. Jayawickrema, for the accused
B. Jayasuriya, C. C., for the Crown.
Cur . adv. vult
October 7, 1946, NAGALINGAM A.
J.-
This is an application under section 31 of the Courts
Ordinance for the discharge of the prisoner or in the alternative for an order
admitting him to bail.
The prisoner is indicated at the instance of the
Attorney-General on a charge of murder. He was committed on July 16, 1945, and
it has been argued on his behalf that the first criminal sessions at which he
might have been properly tried was the one that commenced on July 10, 1945, and
which ended on October 9, 1945. Crown counsel disputes this and it is obvious
that the sessions that commenced on July 10, 1945, that is to say, six days
anterior to the date of his commitment of the prisoner is not the first criminal
sessions after the date of his commitment. I would therefore hold that the
prisoner could not properly have been tried at the sessions that commenced on
July 10, 1945.
It was next argued that the prisoner should have been bought
to trial at the next criminal sessions which commenced on October 10, 1945,
ending on January 9, 1945, the indictment on him was served only on December 27,
1945, In view of the amendment introduced in properly tried at any sessions
unless and until a fortnight had elapsed after the service of the indictment on
him. The fortnight after date of service of indictment on him would elapse only
on January 10, 1946, so that he could not properly have been brought to trial
even at the sessions that commenced on October 10, 1945, because that sessions
did not extend to January 10, 1946.
The next point to consider is whether he could properly have
been tried at the sessions that commenced on January 10, 1946, and which
concluded on March 19, 1946. As the first date on which the prisoner could have
been brought to trail was January 11, 1946, that is the day following that on
which the sessions commencing on January 10, 1946, began the first criminal
sessions after the date of his commitment at which he might properly have been
tried would not have been the one that commenced on January 10, 1946, The first
criminal sessions, therefore, after the date of his commitment at which the
prisoner might properly have been tried was the one that commences on March 20,
1946, and that ended on July 9, 1946. The case, as a matter of fact, was set
down for trial on May 30, 1946. but had to be postponed as the prisoner
was suffering from an attack of
mumps. The case was thereafter postponed for July 18, 1946, that is, for the
following criminal sessions commencing on July 10, 1946. the criminal sessions
that commenced on July 10, 1946, would therefore have been the second criminal
sessions at which the prisoner could have been brought to trial, but the seco
