Sivarajasingham V. S. I. Police

1948 Present : Windham J.
 
SIVARAJASINGHAM, Appellant, and S. I. POLICE,
POINT PEDRO, Respondent.
 
S. C. 1,361-M. C. Point Pedro, 9,681.

Criminal Procedure Code-Application for adjournment-Absence of witness-Attention of Magistrate not directed to whether reasonable efforts were made-No reasons for refusal-Re-trial--Section 289.
 
The accused in this case applied for a postponement in order to call a doctor to testify to his injuries. This application was refused by the Magistrate.
 
There was nothing on the record to show that the Magistrate had directed his attention to the question whether reasonable efforts had been made to call the witness.
 
Held, that this was sufficient ground for re-trial.
 
Held, further, that under section 289 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code an order refusing a postponement must contain a written statement of the reasons for such order.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Point Pedro.
 
R. L. Pereira, K.C., with H. W. Tambiah and S. Sharvananda, for the appellant
 
Arthur Keuneman, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 21, 1948. WINDHAM J.-
 
The appellant was convict

Click Here to Read the rest of this document