SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

APPUSINGHO et al. v. VAN BUREN


Appusingho Et Al., V. Van Buren

1948 Present : Basnayake J.
 
APPUSINGHO
et al., Appellants, and VAN BUREN (Excise
Inspector),
Respondent.
 
S. C. 911-914-M. C. Chilaw, 33,861.

Penal Code, sections 183, 220a, 344-Obstruction to Public Servant-Arrest without warrant-Record of grounds of belief-Condition precedent-Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, section 75.
 
An Excise officer has no power to arrest a person who commits an offence under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance unless he either has a warrant or makes the record specified by section 75 (2) of that Ordinance. An arrest otherwise made is illegal and resistance to it is not an offence.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Chilaw.
 
G. E. Chitty, with Cecil Wijeratne, for the accused, appellants.
 
V. T. Thamotheram, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

 March 24, 1948. Basnayake J.-
 
The four accused-appellants were tried and convicted of offences punishable under sections 183, 220a and 344 of the Penal Code. The first and fourth appellants were each fined Rs. 50 under section 220a, the second and third appellants were each fined Rs. 25 in respect of











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top