1951 Present: Dias S.P.J. and Gunasekara J.

PONNUSAMY, Appellant, and. ALPHONSUS, Respondent

S. C. 212-M. C. Hatton, 17,180

Rural Courts Ordinance, No. 12 of 1945, ss. 10 (b), 11-Criminal trespass with intention to intimidate, insult or annoy-Right of Rural Court to try such offence-Penal Code, ss. 427, 433.

A Rural Court has no jurisdiction to try an offence of criminal trespass where the intent is to intimidate, insult or annoy.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Hatton. This appeal was reserved for adjudication by a Bench of two Judges on a reference made by de Silva J.

M. M. Kumarakulasingham, with J. C. Thurairatnam, for the accused appellant.

H. V. Perera, E .C., with F. C. W. van Geyzel, for the complainant respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 20, 1951. GUNASEKARA J.-

The appellant in this case was convicted by the Magistrate's Court of Hatton on a charge of criminal trespass, punishable under section 433 of the Penal Code, which alleged that the intent of the trespass was " to insult and/or intimidate" the complainant. The case comes before us for the decision of a question that has been reserved by de Silva J. Section 48 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6) provides that whenever any question shall arise for adjudication in any case coming before a single Judge of the Supreme Court, which shall appear to such Judge to be a question of doubt or difficulty, it shall be lawful for such Judge to reserve such question for the decision of more than one Judge of that Court; and section 48A provides that any question so reserved shall be decided by a Bench, constituted in accordance with an Order made by the Chief Justice in that behalf, of two or more Judges of that Court.

The present question arose before de Silva J. in the unusual form of a preliminary objection taken by the appellant's Counsel, as appears from the following passage in his order :

" Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has raised a preliminary objection. He submits that the Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. He cites Sec. 11 of Ord. 12 of 1945 (Rural Courts) and submits that the Rural Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try this case-vide schedule 2 attached to the said ordinance ".

This submission assumes, of course, that there is a Rural Court which has jurisdiction over the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed and upon that assumption the question for decision is whether that Rural Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Magistrate's Court of Hatton to try the offence charged. The point appears to be covered by the decision in Maruthappen v. Ashton 1[(1948) 49 N. L. R. 132.] where the intent of the trespass charged was alleged to have been to annoy the complainant, and my brother Dias held that for that reason a Rural Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence. My brother de Silva having cited this case sets out as follows his ground for reserving the question for the decision of a larger Bench :

" I have already read this judgment and the second schedule to the ordinance and I feel that this matter requires consideration by a fuller Bench. This is a matter of importance and I should like the matter to be considered by a Bench of two Judges. I accordingly refer the preliminary objection raised by learned Counsel for the appellant for consideration and determination by a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court. "

Section 11 of the Rural Courts Ordinance, No. 12 of 1945, provides that (subject to-certain exceptions) the jurisdiction conferred by that Ordinance on Rural Courts shall be exclusive and that oases within that jurisdiction shall not be entertained, tried or determined by any court established under the provisions of the Courts Ordinance. The criminal

jurisdiction of Rural Courts is defined by section 10, and it is contended for the appellant that the offence of which he has been convicted f