1957 Present: T. S. Fernando, J.



M. M. BANDAPPUHAMY, Appellant, and G. M. B. EKANAYAKE,
(Inspector of Police), Respondent

S. C. 232-M. C. Chilaw 16,487

    Evidence-Palm print or' finger print-Mode of proving it-Expert-Is proof of his competency necessary ?-Evidence Ordinance, s. 45.

In a case where the prosecution relies on the evidence of the palm print of the accused as incriminating the accused, evidence must be expressly adduced to show that the finger print slip alleged to have been taken in Court for examination by an expert did in fact contain the palm prints of the accused.

Quaere, whether failure to prove the competency of a witness called as an expert renders his evidence irrelevant.

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

E. A. G. de Silva, for the accused-appellant.

Ananda G. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 20, 1957. T. S. FERNANDO, J.- I

The negligence of the prosecution in the Magistrate's Court is responsible for the decision have reached in this case that the conviction of the appellant must be set aside.

The appellant had been charged with the commissio