Haramanis Appuhamy V. Inspector Of Police

1964 Present: Sri Skanda Rajah, J.

HARAMANIS APPUHAMY, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE
 BANDARAGAMA, Respondent

S. C. 257/1964-M. C. Panadura, 78,171

Appeal-Time limit for filing petition of appeal in criminal case-Computation- Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 306, 338 (1) (a).

Where an accused person is convicted and sentenced, the time within which an appeal should be preferred must be computed from the date on which the reasons for the decision are given, and not from the date of conviction and sentence.

                   Jones v. Amaraweera (1939) 41 N. L. R. 263, not followed.

Knives Ordinance-Section 3-Imposition of fine-Default sentence must be simple imprisonment-Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 312 (1) (c), 312 (1) (e) (v).

           Under section 3 of the Knives Ordinance, only a fine can be imposed and, therefore, the default sentence should be simple, and not rigorous, imprisonment.

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

                      No appearance for accused-appellant.

                     W. K. Premaratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

June 12,1964. SRI SKANDA RAJAH, J.-
 
               When this matter was taken up yesterday, Mr. Premaratne, Crown Counsel, who appeared for the respondent, there being no appearance for the appellant, brought to my notice the case of Jones v. Amaraweera, [1 (1939) 41 N. L. R. 263; 15 C. L. W. 18.] which followed The King v. de Silva  [  2 (1916) 3 C. W. R. 235 ]   and Kershaw v. Rodrigo .[ 3 (1916) 3 C. W. R. 44. ]

              In those cases it was held that the time within which an appeal should be preferred must be computed from the time on which the conviction and sentence were entered and not from the date on which the reasons for the decision were given. With great respect to the eminent judges who decided those cases I indicated that it appeared to me unreasonable

To expect an accused who is convicted and sentenced to her the petition of appeal before the reasons for his conviction are known. I reserved judgment to consider this matter and today as Mr. Pullenayegum, Senior Crown Counsel, was in court I invited his assistance. This Court is obliged to him for it.

Section 338(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads Thus : -

Subject to the provisions of the last three preceding sections any person who shall be dissatisfied with any judgement or final ender pronounced by any Magistrates court or District Court in a criminal case or matter to which he is a party may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against such Judgement for any error in law, or in fact

          (a)  by lodging within ten days from the time of such judgement or order being passed?.

In this case the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default 3 month's rigorous imprisonment of the 2nd March, 1964. The reasons were delivered only on 16th March, 1964, and the petition of appeal was field on 14-03-1964

If one follows these Judgments one would have to hold that the accused's appeal was out of time. Section 328(1) (a), which I have quoted above, states that an appeal can be lodged within ten days from the time of "Such judgment". Section 306 states : The following provisions shall apply to the judgement of courts other than the Supreme Court : - (1) The judgment shall be written by the District Judge or Magistrate who herd the case and shall be dated and signed by him in open court at the time of pronouncing it, and in cases where appeal lies shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereof, and the reasons It is would clearly indicate that in cases where appeal reason he point or points for determination should be set out and the predation to the word " Judgment in section 338 (1) were cannot resist the conclusion that an appeal can be field with in ten days of the delivery of the reasons (judgment). Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document