LAW & LAWYER

DECIDED JUDGMENTS ON DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVITS. Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS ORDINANCE NO. 9 OF 1895 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SEC 181, 437 ETC..   01. RUSTOMJEE V. KHAN 18 NLR 120 PEREIRA J. Under the Oaths Ordinance, 1895, it is open to a non-Christian who believed in God to swear rather than affirm. On the petition filed the District Judge made an interlocutory order in terms of sub-section (b) of section 377 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondent filed two affidavits in terms of section 384. One of these affidavits the District Judge rejected, because the deponent, a Parsee gentleman, and presumably a Zoroastrian, preferred to swear instead of affirming. Whatever other reasons there may be for rejecting this affidavit:, the reason given by the District Judge appears to me to be untenable. He says: " The word ' sworn ' would seem only to be appropriate to the case of an oath by a Christian. "I do not agree with him

PRIMARY COURTS' PROCEDURE ACT (NO. 44 OF 1979) - SECT 66 APPLICATIONS Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   01. VELUPILLAI AND OTHERS V. SIVANATHAN (1993) 1 SLR 123 February 24, 1993. ISMAIL, J. Under section 66 (1)(a) of the Primary Courts Procedure Act, the formation of the opinion as to whether a breach of the peace is threatened or likely is left to the police officer inquiring into the dispute. The police officer is empowered to file the information if there is a dispute affecting land and a breach of the peace is threatened or likely. The Magistrate is not put on inquiry as to whether a breach of the peace is threatened or likely . In terms of section 66 (2) the Court is vested with jurisdiction to inquire into and make a determination on the dispute regarding which information is filed either under section 66 (1)(a) or 66 (1)(b). However when an information is filed under section 66 (1)(b) the only material that the Magistrate would have before him is t

  RELEASE OF ACCUSED IF EVIDENCE DEFICIENT. Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 114. If upon an investigation under this Chapter it appears to the officer in charge of the police station or the inquire that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate's Court, such officer or inquirer shall if such person is in custody release him on his executing a bond with or without sureties as such officer or inquirer may direct to appear if and when so required before a Magistrate's Court having jurisdiction to try or inquire into the offence. 109. 5 (b) If it appears to an officer in charge of a police station or an inquirer that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation he shall not be bound to investigate the case.   ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. PUNCHI BANDA AND OTHERS (1986) 1 SRIL.R. 40    Section 109 deals with the steps to be taken by an

SEARCH OF PLACES BY POLICE OFFICERS OR INQUIRER. Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 112. (1) Whenever any officer in charge of a police station or an inquirer making an investigation in a cognizable case officer considers that the production of any document or thing is necessary to the conduct of the investigation, and there is reason to believe that a person to whom summons or order under section 66 has been or might be issued will not produce such document or other thing as directed in the summons or order, or when such document or other thing is not known to be in the possession of any person, such officer or inquirer may search or cause search to be made for the same in any place. (2) Such officer or inquirer shall practicable conduct the search in person. (3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may require any grama seva niladhari to

  LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DECIDED CASES ON RETROSPECTIVITY OF LAWS Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 (6) No person shall be held guilty of an offence on account of any act or omission which did not, at the time of such act or omission, constitute such an offence and no penalty shall be imposed for any offence more severe than the penalty in force at the time such offence was committed.   INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE - PRESUMPTION OF NON RETROSPECTIVITY 6(3)       Whenever any written law repeals either in whole or part a former written law, such repeal shall not, in the absence of any express provision to that effect, affect or be deemed to have affected- (a) the past operation of or anything duly done or suffered under the repealed written law ; (b) any offence committed, any right, liberty, or penalty acquired or incurred under the repealed written law ; (c) any action, proceeding, or thing pending or incompleted when the repealin