JURISDICTION OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT.
Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law
JUDICATURE ACT 02 OF 1978
30. Every Magistrates Court shall have and exercise all
powers and authorities and perform all duties which Magistrates' Courts are
empowered and required to have, exercise and perform by virtue of the provisions
of the Penal Code or of the law relating to criminal procedure or of any other
enactment for the time being in force in any way empowering or requiring them
in that behalf. For the purposes of this section "law relating to criminal
procedure” shall mean the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT NO 15
OF 1979
128
(1) Every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed.
(2) Any Magistrate's Court within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of which an accused may be or be found shall
have jurisdiction respectively in all cases of offences otherwise within their
respective jurisdictions which have been committed on the territorial waters of
Sri Lanka.
(3) An offence committed on the
territorial waters of Sri Lanka to which subsection (2) is not applicable or an
offence committed on the high seas, or on board any ship or upon any aircraft
may be tried or inquired into by the Magistrate's Court of Colombo if it
otherwise has jurisdiction or on indictment by the High Court.
129. When a person is accused of the
commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any
consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by any
court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which any such thing has
been done or any such consequence has ensued.
130. When an act is an offence by reason
of the relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an
offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, a charge of the
first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of which either act was done.
131.
(1) The offence of having escaped
from custody may be tried either by the court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the person charged is or by the court within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.
(2) The offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal
breach of trust may be inquired into or tried either by the court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the
subject of the offence was received by the accused person or by the court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed.
(3) The offence of stealing anything may be inquired into or
tried by any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such thing was
stolen or was possessed by the thief or by any person who receives or retains
the same knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.
132.
(1)
(a) When it is uncertain in which of
several local areas an offence was committed; or
(b) where an offence is committed
partly in one local area and partly in another; or
(c) where an offence is a continuing
one and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or
(d) where an offence consists of
several acts done in different local areas; or
(e) where in the course of the same
transaction different offences are committed in different local areas,
such offence or offences may be
inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any one of such
local areas.
(2) An offence committed whilst the
offender is in the course of performing a journey or voyage may be inquired
into or tried by a court through or into the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the offender or the person against whom or the thing in respect of which the
offence was committed passed in the course of that Journey or voyage.
(3) All offences against the
provisions of any law for the time being in force relating to railways,
telecommunications, the post office, or arms and ammunition may be inquired
into or tried by any court, whether the offence is stated to have been
committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such court or not,
provided that the offender is found within such local jurisdiction.
133. Whenever any doubt is entertained by
a Magistrate as to the Magistrate's Court by which any offence should be
inquired into, such Magistrate may embody the ascertained facts in the form of a
case and transmit the same to the Attorney-General for his opinion, and the
Attorney-General shall thereupon decide in which court the offence shall be
inquired into and such court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to inquire into
such offence
134. Any sentence or order of any
criminal court in the trial of an offence shall not be liable to be set aside
merely on the ground that the inquiry into the commission of the offence to which
the sentence or order relates was made by a Magistrate's Court not empowered under
this Chapter so to do.
DECIDED JUDGEMENTS
01. R.V.Lakshmi (1901) 24 P.R.72
That the use of the word ordinarily
together with section 23, show the venue is not a question of jurisdiction in
the true sense of the word, and that wrong venue does not necessarily invalidate
the proceedings. 128(1)
02. SINNAPPU v. SILVA. 20 NLR 347
The accused, who were fishermen of
Kalutara, were charged with having committed robbery of fish worth Rs. 4 from
other fishermen who went out to sea in katumarams from Kalutara. This
took place at a part of the sea which was beyond the limits of the territorial waters
of Ceylon.
Held, that the Police Court of
Kalutara had jurisdiction. 128(2)
03. PARAMALINGAM V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL 63 NLR 202
In an application under the proviso
to section 43 of the Courts Ordinance for the re-transfer to the Magistrate’s
Court, Kayts, of a case the trial of which the Attorney-General, acting under
the main provisions of that section, had by his fiat transferred to the
Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
Held, (i) that the expression “any
party considering himself aggrieved ” in the proviso to section 43 of the
Courts Ordinance is not restricted to a party on record, that is to say, either
the accused or the person who is formally the complainant. Accordingly, where
the Police have filed a prosecution on a complaint made by a person, the latter
(though not a party on the record) is a party within the meaning of the proviso
and is entitled to move the Supreme Court for the re-transfer of the case.
(ii) that a re-transfer would be
ordered by the Supreme Court if the Attorney General adopts an attitude of
silence in regard to the reasons that moved him to issue his fiat. 128(2)
04. AMIRTHALINGAM V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 66 NLR 407
Where, in an application for the
re-transfer of a criminal case transferred from one court to another under the
provisions of section 43 of the Courts Ordinance, affidavits are filed by the
Attorney General showing cause against the motion, the petitioner is entitled
to file counter-affidavits. 128(2)
05. THE KING VS PERERA 19 NLR 310
The accused wrote a threatening letter address to X at
Batuwatta and posted it at polgahawela. Batuwatta was within
the jurisdiction of the district court Kegalle where as polgahawela
was outside the jurisdiction of the court. The charge against the accused was
that "he did at Batuwatta" within the jurisdiction of the
district court of Kegalle, commit the offence of criminal
intimidation. The judge refused to hear the case, holding that he has
no jurisdiction to do so as the letter was posted at
polgahawela, held, that the order was pre mature. (129)
06. KING VS SENGINA 8 NLR 102
The mere fact that an Itinerating Police Magistrate having
jurisdiction over parts of two judicial districts entertained, while holding
Court in one district, a complaint of an offence committed in another district over
which he has jurisdiction, will not render his order that the accused should be
committed for trial liable to be set aside, unless the irregularity has occasioned
a failure of justice as provided in sections 146 and 423 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. (134)
Comments
Post a Comment