041-NLR-NLR-V-48-HAMEED-Price-Control-Inspector-Appellant-and-THURAISAMY-NADAR-Respondent.pdf
Hameed v. Thuraisamy Nadar.
119
1946Present: Nagalingam A.J.
HAMEED (Price Control Inspector), Appellant, and THURAI-SAMY NADAlR, Respondent.
454—M. C. Chilaw, 31,347.
Defence (Control of Prices) (Supplementary Provisions) Regulations—PriceControl Inspector—His right to prosecute—Requirement of proof thathe acted as “ authorised officer ",
In a prosecution for sale of a controlled article in excess of the control,price, objection was taken on behalf of the accused that there was noproof that the prosecuting officer was in fact a public servant withinthe meaning of section 148 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
There was proof that the complainant did act as a Price ControlInspector, but there was no proof that he acted as an " authorised■ officer ”—
Held, that the accused was entitled to be acquitted.
Perera v. Alwis (1944) 45 N. L. R. 136, followed.
120N AG ALIN GAM A.J.—Hameed v. Thuraisamy Nadar.
^J^PPEAL against an acquittal from the Magistrate’s Court, Chilaw.
J.G. T. Weeraratne, C.C., for the Attorney-General.
Sam P. C. Fernando, for the accused, respondent.
December 19, 1946. Nagalingam A.J.—
This is an appeal by a person calling himself a Price Control Inspectorwith the sanction of the Attorney-General from an order of acquittal bythe learned Magistrate of Chilaw acquitting the accused of the offence ofhaving sold dry chillies in excess of the control price. The only pointurged before the Magistrate on behalf of the accused was that there wasno proof that the person who claimed to be a Price Control Officer was infact a public servant within the meaning of section 148 (1) (b) of theCriminal Procedure Code entitling him to file plaint in the way he did,and in the case of Perera v. Alwis 1 the decision of Keuneman J. was citedto the Magistrate. In view of this judgment the learned Magistrateacquitted the accused. Learned Counsel for the accused argues thatin the case before Keuneman J., while there was proof that thecomplainant in that case was acting as Price Control Inspector, even asit is shown to be the case in the present one, it was not shown in thatcase nor in this case that the Price Control Inspector was an authorisedofficer and the judgment of the Magistrate is therefore right. Theregulations relied upon by learned Crown Counsel afford no assistanceto the appellant because the Defence (Control of Prices) (SupplementaryProvisions) Regulations, 1942, in sub-paragraph (3) of Regulation (1) inthe schedule thereto defines “ authorised officer ” as “ any other officeror person (other than a Controller or any Deputy or Assistant Controller)appointed by the Controller by a notification published in the Gazette tobe an authorised officer While in this case, as stated earlier, there isproof that the complainant did act as a Price Control Inspector, there isno proof that he acted as an “ authorised officer ”. Had there beenproof that the Inspector had acted as an “ authorised officer ” it wouldhave been possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of exception(1) to section 91 of the Evidence Ordinance but in the absence of suchproof the learned Magistrate was right in following the authority citedto him and in acquitting the accused. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
'{1944) 45 N. L. B. 13S.