Back
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WILLIAM et al.
NLR57V9
1955 Present : de Silva J.
and Sansoni J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and WILLIAM et al.,
Respondents
S. C. 12-D. C. (Criminal) Jaffna, 4,489
Bribery Act, No. 11 of 1954-Indictment-Requirement of signature of
Attorney-General-Sections 3 (2), 5, 6 (1), 8, 9 (1), 19 (b), 25, 78 (1)-
Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 148 (e), 165 F, 186, 393.
In a prosecution for bribery under the Bribery Act, an indictment signed by a
Crown Counsel contravenes the requirement of sections 5, 8 and 78 (1) that the
indictment should not be signed except by the Attorney-General. A District Judge
has no jurisdiction to try the accused upon such an indictment.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.
Douglas Jansze, Acting Solicitor-General, with L. B. T. Premaratne and
V. S. A.
Pullenayagam, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General, appellant.
S. Nadesan. Q.C., with J. V. C. Nathaniel, for the accused respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 22, 1955. SANSONI J.-
This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against the order of the learned
District Judge of Jaffna discharging both the accused who appeared before him in
these proceedings upon being served with copies of an indictment in the
following terms :
" You are indicted at the instance of Thusew Samuel Fernando, Esquire, Q.C, Her
Majesty's Attorney-General, and the charge against you is
That on or about the 18th day of June 1954, at Jaffna within the jurisdiction of
this Court, you, Rajapaksa Vithanage William, being a public servant, to wit,
Examiner of Motor Vehicles in the Department of the Commissioner of Motor
Traffic, did accept a gratification, to wit, a sum of Rs. 50, as an inducement
or reward for your performing an official act, to wit, the examining of and
recommending the issue of a licence to drive a motor vehicle to P. B. R. S.
Cooray of Jaffna, and that you are thereby guilty of an offence punishable under
Section 19 (b) of the Bribery Act, No. 11 of 1954.
2. That at the time and place and in the course of the same transaction
aforesaid you, Arunasalam Sinnapodiya Nagalingam, the second accused
above-named, did abet the commission of the said offence of bribery which said
offence was committed in consequence of such abetment, and that you are thereby
guilty of an offence punishable under Section 19 (b) read with Section 25 of the
said Bribery Act, No. 11 of 1954.
This 19th day of October, 1954.
Sgd . . . . . . . . .
Crown Counsel. "
A preliminary objection was taken by their Counsel based on S. 78 (1) of the
Bribery Act, No. 11 of 1954, which reads : " No prosecution for any offence
under this Act shall be instituted in any Court except by, or with the written
sanction of, the Attorney-General ". It was contended that this prosecution had
not been instituted by the Attorney-General or with his written sanction. The
Act makes provision for the prosecution of two classes of offences, namely,
offences of bribery and offences other than bribery, and these two classes are
dealt with in Part II and Part V respectively. The offences with which the
accused were charged fall within Part II, and all prosecutions for such offences
have to be instituted by the Attorney-General.
The earliest stage at which it can be said that a prosecution has been initiated
is when the Attorney-General requires a Magistrate, upon a warrant under S. 148
(1) (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to hold an inquiry in respect of an
allegation of bribery-S. 3 (2), but that course was not adopted in this
prosecution. A prosecution can also be said to be initiated where without such
preliminary inquiry the Attorney-General indicts the offender before the Supreme
Court or the District Court, or arraigns him before a Board of Inquiry-S. 5 and
S. 8. It will be observed that the Attorney-General alone is empowered to act
under SS. 3 (2), 5 and 8.
There are two Sections which confer upon the Attorney-General the power
