Back
RAJAH v. ABEYEGUNEWARDENE
NLR48V21
Present : Nagalingam A.J.
RAJAH, Appellant, and ABEYEGUNEWARDENE, Respondent.
1,374 - M. C. Colombo South, 6,231.
Motor car - Driving in such
manner as to obstruct other traffic- Meaning of the term "obstructing traffic"-
Motor Car Ordinance, ss.85 (7), 86,176.
Where a motorist crosses the road causing some slight obstruction to the other
traffic he cannot be said to be guilty of obstructing traffic within the meaning
of section 85 (7) of the Motor Car Ordinance.
APPEAL
against a conviction from the
Magistrate's Court Colombo South.
F. A. Hayley, K.C ( with him B. D. Gandevia ), for the accused,
appellant.
J. G. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the Attorney - General.
Cur. Adv. Vult.
December 17, 1946. NAGALINGAM
A.J.-
The charge against the accused in this case is that he did drive a motorcar from
a highway into a place which is not a highway in such a manner as to obstruct
other traffic on the highway in breach of section 85 (7) of the Motor Car
Ordinance. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 (Fifty).
The main ground that has been
urged in appeal on his behalf is that an analysis of the evidence led on behalf
of the prosection reveals that the accused's version of how the accident which
has given rise to this prosecution is entitled to prevail over the version given
by either of the two prosection witnesses who themselves speak to the
circumstances attending the accident though in parts of their testimony they are
in conflict with each other. Briefly the facts are that the accused was driving
from the direction of Colombo towards Nugegoda along the High Level road at
about 1 o'clock on the afternoon on the day in question keeping well to his left
and that as he approached the junction of Frances places with the High Level
road he drove his car across the High Level road to turn into Frances places;
while his car was yet on the High Level road close to the junction of Frances
place, a naval truck driven from the direction of Nugegoda towards colombo came
and banged into the left side of the accused's car.
The case for th e accused is that he is a fraquent user of this part of the
road, that he came along the High Level road and before taking the turn he
looked right ahead of him as far as he could, that is to say, to the bend of the
road which is now proved to be about 85 feet from the junction of Frances place
according to th e architect, Gonzal, and seeing no traffic he slowly drove
across the centre of the road and got on to the right of the road and while his
car was yet on the main road but almost close the imaginary right hand edge of
the road at the junction his attention was attracted by the noise caused by the
naval truck getting into a skid at a distance of 55 feet away from him and as he
looked he saw the truck come towards his car on the skid and strike against his
car. Admittedly, the road was wet after the rains.
The two witnesses for the prosection are the driver of the naval truck, one
Banda, and one Lt. Post who was seated by the driver. According to Lt. Post, the
truck was driven from the direction of Nugegoda towards the Colombo, and as he
came from the direction of Nugegoda towards the bend, that is to say, the bend
85 feet away from the junction of Frances place, he noticed a lorry coming from
the opposite direction, that is to say, the same direction as the one that was
being taken by the accused. He further says that as he reached the bend he saw
three private cars following the lorry and that the last of the three cars was
on his side of the road, apparently turning into Frances place.
If Lt. Post's evidences, which the learned Magistrate accepts, is to be acted
upon, there can be little doubt that at a distance of 85 feet from the junction
of Frances place he had noticed the car of the accused turn and get on to its
right side of th e road. Two facts emerge very clearly from this evidence of Lt.
Pos
