Attorney General V. Baskaran

1959 Present : Basnayake, C. J.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and BASKARAN, Respondent

S. C. 33-M. O. Point Pedro, 4801

    Criminal procedure-Charge-Duty of Magistrate to frame charge in a summary case-Joinder of charges-budget thereon of Interpretation Ordinance, 8. 9Oriminal Procedure Code, 88. 172, 187-Penal Code, 8. 409-Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957,8.84 (2)-Motm' Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951,8.226.

The obligation of framing the correct charge or charges in a Case summarily triable is one that rests on the Magistrate. Where, therefore, the Magistrate refuses to frame charges in the terms suggested by the prosecution, it is his -duty to frame the correct charge.

The rule laid down in section 9 of the Interpretation Ordinance, that when .an act or omission constitutes an often under two or more laws the offender is liable to be prosecuted under either or any of those laws but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence, applies to offence's which -though punishable under different laws consist of the very same ingredients. It is designed to prevent a person being punished twice for the same offence. And does not, therefore, concern the trial of more than one offence at the. same trial.

The accused, who was alleged to have defaced the identification plates of an omnibus and obscured a part of them, was charged with having committed three offences, viz. :-(1) under section ll 409 of the Penal Code, (2) under section 4 (2) of the Motor Transport Act, and (3) under section 226 of the Motor Traffic Act.

Held, that section 9 of the Interpretation Ordinance was not a bar to the prosecution of the accused under each of the laws referred to in the respective charges.

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

Ananda Pereira, Senior Crown Counsel, with V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Crown Counsel, for Complainant-Appellant.

No appearance for Accused-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 17, 1959. BASNAYAKE, C.J.

This is an appeal by the Attorney-General. Proceedings were instituted -on 13th May 1958 on a written report under section 148 (1) (b) of the .criminal Procedure Code by Inspector of Police Rajasundaram. The report alleged that the accused committed offences punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code, and section 84 (2) of the Motor Transport Act, No. 48 of 1957, and section 226 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 -of 1951.

On that day summons was issued on the accused. He appeared on 27th May 1958. But no evidence was recorded till 8th July 1958 as the witnesses for the prosecution were not present, when after recording the evidence of Police Constable Kandiah the Magistrate, without reading the statement of particulars of the offences contained in the summons, as he was entitled to do under section 187 (2), framed the following charges against the accused

" You are hereby charged, that you did within the jurisdiction of this Court, at Pt. Pedro, on 30th April 1958

1. Did with intent to cause knowing that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to Ceylon Transport Board did cause change in omnibus No. 33  1177 property of the Ceylon Transport Board by obliterating the letter on the identification plates of the said omnibus so as to diminish the value or utility thereof and that he did thereby commit mischief an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code.

2. At the same time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the above named accused did willfully deface the identification plates of the aforesaid omnibus No. 33  1177 of the Ceylon Transport Board and he is thereby guilty of an offence punishable under section 48 (2)-(sic)-of the Motor Transport Act. No. 48 of 1957.

3. At the same time and place aforesaid and in the course of the same transaction the above named accused did obscure a part of the front and rear identification plates of motor vehicle to wit t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document