Judge exercising criminal jurisdiction is not entitled to convert the criminal proceedings into a civil suit

-

 

The petitioner is an orphan and has been given shelter in the. Prince's Grace Orphanage (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "orphanage") from his birth or from the time he could remember. The petitioner claims that he was baptized by those who were in charge of the said orphanage and therefore considered to be a Catholic. As the petitioner is an orphan from birth and was given shelter in the orphanage, he continued to stay there until the day of the incident.

On 28 August 2013, the OIC of the relevant police station filed a B report to the Magistrate's Court of Kalutara alleging the commission of certain offenses by the petitioner along with certain others, and the learned Magistrate in the same proceedings made an order to have the petitioner evicted from the orphanage in question. The order made by the learned magistrate evicting the children who have attained the age of majority, including the petitioner from the orphanage includes a condition that those who are not willing to vacate the premises are obliged to show cause.

The order of the learned High Court Judge running into 18 pages considers the question of whether the petitioner has made out a case, disclosing exceptional circumstances to warrant the invocation of the discretionary remedy of revision. Quite unfortunately, the learned High Court  Judge has not considered the question of whether the learned  Magistrate in the exercise of his criminal jurisdiction can direct the eviction of the accused before he decides whether the suspects are guilty of the charges leveled against them. One of the main questions that arises for consideration in this application is whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Undoubtedly, if he has one such remedy he cannot invoke the revisionary jurisdiction unless he satisfies certain prerequisites. The learned Senior State Counsel has submitted that the revisionary powers of the High  Court cannot be invoked inasmuch as the petitioner has an alternative remedy.


CLICK BELOW 

READ JUDGMENT ONLINE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more