Peter Singho, P.M. V. Werapitiya, M.B.

1953 Present: Gratiaen J.

P. M. PETER SINGHO, Appellant, and M. B. WERAPITIYA
(S. I., Police), Respondent

S. C. 835-M. C. Badulla-Haldumulla, 10,128
 

Evidence-Character-Evidence of pending prosecution-Presumption of innocence- Evidence Ordinance, s. 54-Effect of reception of inadmissible evidence in Magistrate's Court.

An accused person who put his " good character " in issue was asked in cross-examination whether there was not pending against him a criminal case-

Held, that the question was inadmissible.

Where a trial Judge has permitted himself, through an improper appreciation of the law, to allow evidence to be led which is of such a character as to pre judice the chances of a fair trial on the real issues in the case, the improper reception of the evidence is fatal to the conviction of the accused, although the accused has been tried not by lay jurors but by a Magistrate trained in the law.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Badulla-Haldu-mulla.

H. V. Perera, Q .C., with M. M. Kumarakulasingham, for the accused appellant.

N. T. D. Kanakaratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document