029-NLR-NLR-V-46-SUB-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-KANDY-Appellant-and-WASSIRA-Respondent.pdf
HOWARD CJ.—Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandy and Wassira.
93
4949
Present: Howard C.J.SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANDY, Appellant, andWASSIRA, Respondent.
1,072—M. C. Kandy, 15,276..
Bread—Sale of 4 oz. loaves over the controlled price—Control in respect 6 of oz.and 16 oz. loaves—Control of Prices Ordinance, No. 39 of 1939, sec. S—Defence (Control of Prices) (SupplementaryProvisions) Regulations,
1942.
Where the accused was charged with selling two 4 oz. loaves ofbread for 15 cents which was excess of the controlled price for a halfpound loaf.
Held, that the accused had not offended against the Defence (Controlof Prices) Regulations as the amount of bread controlled was in respectof sixteen and eight ounce loaves.
Held further, the prosecution was bound to establish by satisfactoryevidence the accuracy of the scales and weights on which the breadwas weighed.
^ PPEAL against an acquittal by the Magistrate of Kandy.
M.P. Spencer, C. C., for the complainant, appellant.
G. E. Chitty for the accused, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 31, 1945. Howard C.J.—i
This is an appeal with the leave of the Attorney-General from an orderof the Kandy Magistrate, acqutting the respondent on a charge framedunder section 5 of the Control of Prices Ordinance, No. 39 of 1939, asamended by the Defence (Control of Prices) (Supplementary Provisions)Regulations, 1942, in that he did on July 18, 1944, sell two 4 oz.loaves of bread at 15 cents when the maximum controlled price thereof-was 13 cents. It was proved by the prosecution that a decoy went to theboutique of the .respondent and asked the respondent for half a pound ofbread and tendered a fifty-cent note. The respondent then gave him2 loves of 4 oz. each and 35 cents in change. After the purchase,a constable came to the boutique and weighed the bread on the balancein respondent’s boutique. The constable found that the two loavesweighed 8 ounces. The Magistrate acquitted the respondent for thereason that there was no evidence as b<? the accuracy of the scales andweights on which the bread was weighed. A further point has also beenmade in this Court on behalf of the respondent. His Counsel has arguedthat inasmuch as the amounts of bread controlled are 16-ounce and 8-ounceloaves, the respondent has not offended against the provisions of the
94
HOWARD C.J.—Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandy and Wassira.
Ordinance in selling two quarter pound loaves at more than the con-trolled price for one half pound loaf. In my opinion this contention issound. In WeeraseUera v. Subramaniam 1 the accused was charged withthe sale of 8 sulphapyridine tablets at 50 cents a tablet, a price in excessof the maximum price, in breach of au order made under section 3 of theControl of Prices Ordinance. It was held by Wijeyewardene J. thatthe accused had not offended against the provisions of the order as thearticle controlled was a bottle of tablets and not single tablets. I amof opinion that the same principle must be applied in regard to the sale- of bread in this case. The regulation is a penal enactment and must bestrictly construed.
With regard to the weighing of the bread on the scales of the respondent,.criminal cases of this nature must be established beyond all reasonabledoubt. With no evidence as to the accuracy of the scales it cannot besaid that this standard of proof has been reached. I think the Magis-trate’s decision on this point was correct.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed_
• (44 S. L. R. 545).