Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 3 , Page No - 311 - Whichever provision was applicable it is settled law that the gist of the accusation should have been made clear to the appellant and he should have been given an opportunity to furnish an explanation. The summary conviction and sentence of the appellant were a clear breach of the principles of natural justice.

-

 GOVINDARAJAH

v.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

SUPREME COURT
FERNANDO, J.
DHEERARATNE, J. AND
PERERA, J.
SC APPEAL NO. 81/94
CA NO. HC MCA 302/94
MC MT. LAVINIA NO. 79393
OCTOBER 06, 1994
 
Contempt of Court - Summary punishment - Code of Criminal Procedure Act, section 449 (1) - Breach of natural justice - Validity of the conviction.
 
Immediately after the appellant had given evidence in a criminal case the Magistrate held that the appellant had given false evidence and proceeded to convict and sentence him forthwith acting under the Judicature Act. The High Court attributed the conviction to section 449 (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and upheld the order.
 
Held :
 
(1)  Whichever provision was applicable it is settled law that the gist of the accusation should have been made clear to the appellant and he should have been given an opportunity to furnish an explanation.
 
(2) The summary conviction and sentence of the appellant were a clear breach of the principles of natural justice.
 
Case referred to :
 
Daniel Appuhamy v. The Queen - (1962) 64 NLR 481.
 
APPEAL from the judgment of the High Court.


K. S. Tillekeratne with Jacob Joseph for appellant.
 
D. Weerasuriya, State Counsel for Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

Editor's Note :
 
Vide Tillekeratne v. Officer in-Charge, Pugoda Police Station (1997) 7 Sri LR 07 on the same view.
 
October 06, 1994
 
FERNANDO, J.
 
The appellant was a witness at a criminal trial. Immediately after he  gave evidence, the learned Magistrate made an order in which he held that the appellant had given false evidence; stated his reasons for that conclusion; and dealt with the appellant for contempt of court under the provisions of the Judicature Act. He then sentenced the appellant to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. He then acquitted the accused.
 
On appeal, the learned High Court Judge considered the Magistrate as having acted under section 449 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, and upheld his order, but reduced the sentence.
 
Whichever provision was applicable, it is settled law that the gist of the accusation against him should have been made clear to the appellant (even though not with the same particularity required in an indictment) and he should have been given an opportunity to furnish an explanation : See Daniel Appuhamy v. The Queen.(1)

In this case it is common ground that the learned Magistrate neither communicated the essence of the accusation to the appellant nor gave him an opportunity to furnish an explanation; instead, he proceeded to convict and sentence him forthwith. This is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice.
 
State Counsel concedes that the order cannot stand. We allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate's Court.
 
DHEERARATNE, J. - I agree.
 
PERERA, J.   - I agree.
 
Appeal allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more