019-NLR-NLR-V-71-E.A-DON-EDIRISINGHE-Appallant-and-W.-S.-C.-DE-ALWIS-Food-Control-Inspector.pdf
88
Don Edirisinghe v. De Alwis
1967Present; Samerawlckrame, J.
E. A. DON EDIRISINGHE, Appellant, and W. S. C. DE ALWIS (Food
Control Inspector), Respondent
8. G. 163 j67, with Application 186/67—M. C. Matugama 6149
Control of Prices Act—Offence thereunder—Mitigatory circumstances—Applicabilityof 8ecti<m 325 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The Regulation made on 27th November 1967 providing that “ section 325of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply in the case of any person whois charged before a Magistrate with an offence under the Control of Prices Actas last amended by Act Mo. 16 of 19G6” is not applicable to a conviction inrespect, of which an appeal was preferred and order was reserved by the SupremeCourt prior to the date when the Regulation came into force.
-AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Matugama.
George Per era, for accused-appellant /petitioner.
Aloy EatnayaJce, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. milt,
SAMEBAWlCKRAME, J.—Don Ediriainghe v. Do Alicia
December 6, 1667. Bamkbawickbamb, J.—
There is on appeal as veil as on application in revision in respect of theoonviction and sentence in this case. On his own plea, the appellanthas been convicted of selling one-eighth pound of dry chillies at a pricein excess of the maximum controlled retail price and has been sentencedto serve a period of rigorous imprisonment for one month and to paya fine of Be. 60.
The appellant is a young man who was studying for the UniversityEntrance Examination. He has committed this offence while he wasin temporary charge of his brother’s boutique. He has passed theSenior School Certificate Examination with a distinction in Arithmeticand a credit pass in Buddhism. The Rev. Principal of the AmaraVidyalaya, where he is studying, has certified that he “has a high senseof respect for tutors, is clever in studies and well behaved and obedient”.He is President of the Students’ Association and teaches at the DhamrnaSchool attaohed to the Sri Oangarama Viharaya. The appellant appearsto be a young man of promise and the conviction and sentence ofimprisonment will have the effect of blasting his future prospects.He has no previous convictions.
I think that this is a fit case for the application of Section 326 of theCriminal Procedure Code. A regulation made on 27th November, 1967,by the Governor- General under Section 6 of the Public Security Ordinanceprovides as follows :—
“ The provisions of Section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code shallnot apply in the ease of any person who is charged before a. Magistratewith an offence under the Control of Prices Act as last amended byAct No. 16 of 1966.”
It is unnecessary, for the purposes of this case, to consider whetherthe Regulation will apply to a person charged in proceedings commencedbefore its enactment. It is sufficient that on the date the appeal andapplication were argued and order was reserved, Section 325 was applicableand that a party is not to be prejudiced by delay by reason of the Courtreserving its order. I think Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure' Codemay be applied in this ease.-
/
Acting in revision, I set aside the conviction and sentence passed on theaccused and without proceeding to oonviction, I warn and discharge him.I also order him, under Section 325 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code,to pay a sum of Rs. 400 as costs of the proceedings. The appeal isformaDy dismissed.
Accused warned and discharged.
8»