081-NLR-NLR-V-75-WAHAB-and-another-Appellants-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE.-PETTAH-Respondent.pdf
464 8AMERAWICKRAME, J.—Piyoaena v. Inspector of Polios, Ppreshore Police
Present: Rajaratnam, J.WAHAB and another, Appellants, and INSPECTOROP POLICE, PETTAH, Respondent8. C. 726-727171—M. G. Colombo, 40610/A
Control pf Prices Act—Section 4 (5)—Charge of contravention of a Price Order—Dateof Minister's approval of the Price Order—Desirability of referring in the chargeto the relevant Gazette.
»[1970) 73 N. L. R. 45.
RAJARATNAM, J — Wahah c. Inspector of Police, PeUah4BS
In a prosecution for oontravention of a Prioa Order under the Control ofPriooa Act, it would be very desirable if the charge refers to the GovernmentGazette giving the date of the Minister's approval of the Prioe Order jn termsof Bootiqn 4 (5) of the Control of Prices Act, especially when there U along interval of time between the date of the Prioe Order and the offence,
A,PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Colombo,
M. Tiruehelvam, with A. Sivanathan, for the accused-appellants.
P.Ramanathan Counsel for the State, for the Attomoy*Qenoral.
Cur, adv. vult.
July 20, 1972. Rajaratnam, J.—
The accused-appellants in this oase were charged under the Controlof Prices Act for having sold a pound of beef for Re, 1, *50 when thecontrolled price was Re. 1 ‘25 and were sentenced to a term of imprison-ment and fined Rs. 2,000 each.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecutionevidence was unreliable and of a contradictory nature and since thedefence had oalled evidence that the benefit of the doubt should havebeen given to the accused.
I have anxiously considered the evidence in this case and the learnedMagistrate’s findings, and I see no reason to interfere with his judgmenton the facts:
Learned Counsel for the appellants made certain legal submissionswith regard to the charge which was attached as defective in that therewas no mention of the Price order being approved by the Minister undera. 4 (5) of the Aot.
This question was considered in Food and Price Control Inspector ®.Piyasena1 by Weerasooriya, J. who held that it was not obligatory onthe prosecution to place before the Court the fact (whether -as a matterto be proved by evidence or to be taken judicial notice of) that theprice order has duly received the Minister’s approval.
Samerawickrame J. in the case of Cooray v. Sub-Inspector of Police,Borella * held the same views but added—
" it may be open to the defence to put before Court material whichshows prima facie that no steps have been taken under s. 4 (5) to placethe matter before the Minister or that the Minister has failed eitherto approve or rescind the order. In suoh a case the Court may wellrequire to be satisfied by the prosecution that there has been no defaultin complying with b. 4 (5).’’
1 ms) 67 N, It, S. 310.
» (1070) 73 N. L S. 807.
486
RAJARATNAM, J.—Wahab v. Inrptctor of Police, Pettah
In the present case the accused are in the beef trade in the EdinboroughMarket and were represented by Counsel and it is a matter that I cantake into consideration that at no time did they question the fact thatthe price order which the prosecution alleged was in operation in thecharge, was so in operation.
In his reply, learned Counsel for the State brought to my notionGovernment Gazette Extraordinary No. 14,762/4 of 24.8.67 which Itake judicial notice of. The price order in thiB case haB been approvedby the Minister. It would have been much more desirable if thecharge had contained this additional information and I hope in futurewithout relying on the decision in the case of Cooray v. Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Borella (supra) prosecutors reveal this additional informationin the charge especially when there is a long interval of time betweenthe date of the price order and the offence. In the present case there wasan averment however that the order was in operation. With greatrespect I agree with Silva J. when he observed in the case reportedin 74 N.L.R. 230 at 235,1 that
11 if at the stage when the notification is published the Order iselevated to the position of an enactment, I do not see any reasonwhy an accused Bhould be continued to be charged under an Order ofthe Controller of Prices when he can he charged in terms of a provisionthat has assumed the form of an enactment.”
I do hope that the Legal Departments advising the Police and the PriceControl officers give strict instructions to them to follow this rule toprevent such matters to be considered in the appeal Courts from timeto time.
I have also considered the decision in the case of Qunawardena v.Inspector of Police, Ratnapura2, where the Gazette in which the PriceOrder was published was not produced and the prosecuting officer didnot say in evidence that the Price Order mentioned in the chargewas in operation in the area on the date of the alleged offence.
In the present case this Gazette was produced and there was evidencethat the market was within the Colombo Municipal limits. There is alsothis evidence “ I produce Government Gazette, P4, at the time this PriceOrder was in operation.’*
In the circumstances, I dismiss the appeals. Conviction and sentenceof each accused affirmed.
Appeals dismissed,.
1 {1971) 74 N. L. B. 230 at 833.
* (1970)
L. R. 142-