1949   Present . Nagalingam J.

In re FRED E. DE SILVA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION PETITION FOR THE ELECTORAL
DISTRICT OF KANDY AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER SECTIONS 74 AND 75 OF THE CEYLON (PARLIAMENTARY
ELECTIONS) ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1945, AS AMENDED
BY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT)
Act, No. 19 of 1948

Election petition-Illegal practice-Notice to show cause-Return of expenses- Can notice issue to a witness?-Excuse--Inadvertence-Ignorance of law -Meaning of " clerk "-Parliamentary Elections Order in Council 1946-Sections 68, 74, 75 and 82. .

 The term " all persons " in section 82 of the Parliamentary Elections Order in Council embraces every individual who may have been proved at the inquiry to have been guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice and is not limited to any particular class.

 A translator is not a clerk within the meaning of section 68 of the Order in Council.

Ignorance of the law is not inadvertence and is not sufficient ground for relief under sections 74 and 75.

APPLICATION for orders under sections 74 and 75 of the Parliamentary Elections Order in Council, 1946.

G. E. Chitty, with G. T. Samarawickrema, for applicant.

M. Tiruchelvam, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General as amicus. curiae.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 7, 1949 NAGALINGAM J.-

This is an application by the petitioner for orders under sections 74 and 75 of the Order in Council allowing, firstly, the payment of Rs. 40 made by him to one Ganeshan for translating his English manifesto into Tamil to be an exception from the provisions of the Order in Council and, secondly, the failure to include the payment of the said sum of Rs. 40 in the return of election expenses made by him to be an authorised excuse.

The application is a sequel to a notice issued on the petitioner in terms of section 82 of the Order in Council directing him to show cause why he should not be reported for having been guilty of illegal practice in connection with the Kandy bye-election. The facts, evidence of which was given at the trial of the election petition by the petitioner himself and which formed the basis of the notice issued on him, have not been challenged but evidence of certain surrounding circumstances has been led in order to explain the conduct of the petitioner and in mitigation of it.

The following facts may be accepted as proved : The petitioner who was a candidate at the bye-election referred to had prepared his election manifesto in English and in order to place the contents thereof before those electors who were unacquainted with the English language and acquainted only with the Tamil language caused a translation of his manifesto to be prepared by one Ganeshan. At the time that Ganeshan was entrusted with the task of translation the petitioner says he had no idea that he would have to make payment for the reasons (a) that he considered Ganeshan to be one in sympathy with his candidature and therefore out to assist him in his campaign, and (6) that he regarded Ganeshan as a friend of his.

On the footing, therefore, that he had incurred no liability in regard to the Tamil translation of his manifesto, the petitioner says that he sent in his return respecting his election expenses and the return in these circumstances contained no, and could not very well have contained any, reference to a debt due to Ganeshan or to a claim by the latter. The petitioner, however, says that about two or .three weeks after he had furnished his return to the Returning Officer, Ganeshan asked him for payment for the translation he had made and that he thereupon paid a sum of Rs. 40 for such translation. Ganeshan supports the petitioner's statement that at the time he undertook the task nothing was said about payment for his services and that in fact he himself regarded the task as a labour of love for he thought that he was doing the work for a friend and not for a fee. Ganeshan also say