LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DECIDED JUDGEMENTS ON AMENDMENT OF CHARGE SHEET OR INDICTMENT Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 167. (1) Any court may alter any indictment or charge at any time before judgment is pronounced or, in the case of trials before the High Court by a jury, before the verdict of the jury is resumed. (2) Every such alteration shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) The substitution of One charge for another in an indictment or the addition of a new charge to an indictment and in a Magistrate's Court the substitution of one charge for another or the addition of a new charge shall be deemed to be an alteration of such indictment or charge within the meaning of this section. 01. RODRIGO V. THE QUEEN 55 NLR 49 The primary responsibility for the accuracy and suitability of an indictment rests with counsel for the prosecution, and not on the court. The court may, however, decide to amend the indictment o...
LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DECIDED JUDGEMENTS ON JURY TRIAL OPTION IN SRI LANKA. Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, No 15 of 1979 Section 195. Upon the indictment being received in the High Court, the Judge of the High Court presiding at the sessions of the High Court holden in the judicial zone where at the trial is to be held shall - (a) cause the accused to appear or to be brought before him; (b) cause a copy of the indictment with its annexes to be served on each of the accused who will be tried upon that indictment; (c) inform the accused of the date of trial (d) subject to the provisions of section 403 direct the accused to execute a bond to appear in court for his trial or by warrant addressed to the superintendent of any prison authorize the detention of the accused pending his trial; (e) cause the accused to be finger-printed and forward the prints to the Registrar of Finger Prints for examination and report to the prose...
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 ...
Comments
Post a Comment