060-NLR-NLR-V-67-K.-R.-GNANASIVAM-and-another-Appellants-and-A.-C.-H.-MOHAMED-Food-and-Price-C.pdf
Present : Sirimane, J.
K.R. GNANASIVAM and another, Appellants, and A. C. H.
MOHAMED (Food and Price Control Inspector), Respondent
8. 0. 8791880 —M. 0. Kurunegala, 25160
Control of prices—Price Order—Certainty as to prescribed price—Description of article
sold—Quantum of evidence—Control of Prices Act (Cap. 173), s. 4 (4).
Where, by a Price Order published in the Gazette, the Assistant Controller ofPrices of a provincial district (Kurunegala) fixed the maximum price of cumminseed in that district at a price two cents per pound above the price fixed for saleof cummin seed in Colombo—
Held, that there was no uncertainty about the price.
Held further, that, in a prosecution for sale of an article in excess of the pres-cribed price, it is not necessary to call expert evidence concerning the descriptionof the article if there is other sufficient evidence.
Appeals from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Kurunegala.
M.Tiruchelvam, Q.G., with V. Kumaraswamy and N. Radhakrishnan,for the accused-appellants.
U.C. B. Ratnayake, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vull.
December 21, 1964. Sirimane, J.—
The appellants were found guilty of selling l/4th lb. cummin seedat a price in excess of the maximum retail price fixed by Price OrderNo. KU/34/63 published in the Government Gazette ExtraordinaryNo. 13,562 dated 13th March, 1963.
Learned Counsel for the appellants raised two matters :
That there was uncertainty in regard to the price fixed by the
Controller.
That it was not established that the commodity sold was cummin
seed.
In regard to (1), by the Price Order referred to above the AssistantController of Prices of the Kurunegala District fixed the maximumretail price (in that district) at which cummin seed may be sold at aprice two cents per pound above the price fixed for sale of cummin seedwithin the municipal limits of the town of Colombo. Price Ordersrelating to the prices in Colombo are published from time to time interalia by advertisements in the Government Gazettes as required by section4 (4) of the Control of Prices Act (Chapter 173). In my view there isno uncertainty about the price, though a trader may be put to someinconvenience in ascertaining it. Those who choose to trade in thesecommodities must keep themselves informed of the various “ controlledprices ” however inconvenient that may be.
I am unable to agree with the submission that the Price Order isinvalid because it did not mention a particular figure, or because it didnot refer to a particular Price Order in Colombo.
In regard to the second point, there were 3 officers from the FoodControl Department who gave evidence at the trial, that the appellantssold cummin seed. Their evidence on this point was not challengednor was there any suggestion made that they may be mistaken. Infact the cummin seed had been packed and sealed with the thumbimpressions of the appellants at the time of detection. The parcel wasproduced in Court at the trial and no suggestion was made that it con-tained anything other than cummin seed. Apparently the fact thatthe packet had not been opened at the trial had been commented onby the defence at the close of the case, and the learned Magistrate hadthen opened the packet himself and found that it contained cummin seed
In my opinion it was unnecessary for the prosecution to call expertevidence in the circumstances of this case. The appeals are dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.