Ramalingam V. Jaffna Central Bus Co., Ltd.

1954 Present: de Silva J.

M. RAMALINGAM (Office Assistant to the Government Agent,
Northern Province), Appellant, and THE JAFFNA CENTRAL
BUS CO., LTD., Respondent

S. C.764-M. C. Mallakam, 6,447
 

Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2)-Section 6-Prosecution under a repealed Ordinance- Retrospective effect on it of repealing statute-Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938, ss. 29 (1), 150 (1), 158-Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951, s. 243.

Where an offence is committed in contravention of an Ordinance which is subsequently repealed the prosecution in respect of it may, by virtue of section 6 (3) (b) of the Interpretation Ordinance, be instituted even after the repealing statute comes into force, unless the repealing statute expressly prohibits it. Section 6 (3) (b) of the Interpretation Ordinance is independent of section 6 (3) (c).

The accused was charged on July 3, 1953, with having possessed on April 1, 1950, a motor vehicle without a licence in contravention of section 29 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, No. 45 of 1938. The Motor Car Ordinance was, however, repealed on September 1, 1951, by section 243 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951.

Held, that the prosecution was maintainable.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Mallakam.

H. A. Wijemanne, Crown Counsel, with V. S. A. Pullenayagam, Crown Counsel, for the complainant appellant.

C. Renganathan, with V. K. Palasunderam, for the accused respondent.

Cur. adv. vult

November 16, 1954. DE SILVA J.-

The complainant-appellant who is the Office Assistant to the Government Agent, Northern Province, reported to the Magistrate's Court of Mallakam on the 3rd July, 1953, that the accused-respondent did, in or about the 1st April, 1950, in contravention of section 29 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance No. 45 of 1938, possess a Motor Vehicle bearing registered number X 5355 for which a licence was not in force on 1st April, 1950, and the said accused-respondent had thereby committed an offence under section 158 read with section 150 (1) of the said Ordinance. To this charge the respondent on 7th August, 1953, pleaded not guilty.

When the case came up for trial on 27th May, 1954, the proctor who appeared for the defence submitted to the Court that the prosecution could not be maintained because the Motor Car Ordinance No. 45 of 1938 had been repealed by section 243 of the Motor Traffic Act No. 14 of 1951. After hearing the arguments addressed to him by the proctor for the respondent and the Crown Counsel who appeared for the prosecution, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 17th June, 1954, upheld the objection raised by the defence and acquitted the respondent. The complainant has appealed, with the sanction of the Attorney-General, from that order.

As stated above the respondent is charged with the contravention of section 29 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance No. 45 of 1938. The date of the alleged offence is 1st April, 1950. The case was instituted on 3rd July, 1953. The Motor Car Ordinance No. 45 of 1938 was repealed by section 243 of Motor Traffic Act No. 14 of 1951 which came into operation on 1st September, 1951. Admittedly no provision was made in this Act for past contraventions of section 29 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance of 1938 in respect of which legal proceedings had not been taken. The effect of such a repeal, it is contended on behalf of the respondent, is as stated by Tindal C. J. in Kay v. Goodwin [1 (1830) 6 Bing. 576.] (decided before the Interpretation Act of 1889) where he says " I take the effect of repealing a statute to be to obliterate as completely from the records of the Parliament as if it had never been passed ; and it must be considered as a law that never existed except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and conducted whilst it was an existing law ". Mr. Wijemanne, C.C., who appeared for the appellant, however

Click Here to Read the rest of this document