Matale Police v. Murugesu.
1938Present: Keuneman J.
MATALE POLICE v. MURUGESU711—P. C. Matale, 1,544.
Milk—Hawking milk mithout licence—Authority to demand card from vendorand on refusal to arrest—May be verbal—By-law not ultra vires—LocalGovernment Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, ss. 164 to 168, by-law 8.
Where a by-law, framed under sections 164 to 168 of the LocalGovernment Ordinance “ for the control of dairies and the sale of milk ”,provided as follows: “ In the event of any person so refusing or failingto produce such card, it shall be lawful for such Sanitary Inspector orother .authorized person to exercise the powers given to peace officersunder section 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ”,—
Held, that the by-law was not ultra vires.
Held, further, that the authority to exercise the powers given underthe by-law may be verbal.
^^PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Matale.
No appearance for accused, appellant.
R. R. Crosette-Thambiah, C.C., for respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
(1920) 22 N. L. n. 208.
KEUNEMAN J.—Matate Police vo^Murugesu.
November 23, 1938. Keuneman J.—
. Accused was convicted under section 219 of the Penal Code withintentionally offering resistance to A. E. S. Abeykoon, Urban DistrictCouncil Inspector, to the lawful apprehension of himself for the offenceof hawking milk without a licence. Accused was lined Rs. 25 in defaultone month’s rigorous imprisonment.
Regulations framed under sections 164 and 168 of Ordinance No. 11 of1920 for the control of dairies and the sale of milk provide inter alia asfollows :—By-law 8 (11) “ In the event of any person so refusing or failingto produce such card, it shall be lawful for such Sanitary Inspector orother authorized person to exercise the powers given to peace officersunder section 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code ”, Section 33 (1) ofthe Criminal Procedure Code relates to powers of arrest.
Two points of law are taken in the appeal.
That the Inspector in question is a Revenue Inspector and not aSanitary Inspector, and that authority to arrest could only be given tohim in writing. In this case only verbal authority by the Chairman wasproved. I cannot see anything in the by-laws which requires writtenauthority, and I hold in the circumstances that verbal authority issufficient.
That the regulations are ultra wires. Under section 168 (10) (i) ofOrdinance No. 11 of 1920, a District Council has power to make by-lawsinter alia for “ the regulation, supervision, inspection and control ofdairies and the sale of milk ”, I am of opinion that the right to demandproduction of the card, and on failure to do so to exercise the powersunder section 33 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, viz., to demand thename and address of the person so failing to produce the card, and in casethe person refuses to give his name and address, to arrest such personwith a view to ascertaining his name and address, are powers which canfairly be said to come within the terms “ control of the sale of milk ”.Nor am I prepared to say that this by-law is unreasonable. Kruse -v.Johnson' is an authority for the proposition that by-laws made by arepresentative body such as an Urban District Council, where adequatechecks and safeguards are provided by the law as to the making of them,should be supported if possible. “ They ought to be ”, as has been said,“benevolently interpreted, and credit ought to.be given to those whohave to administer them that they will be reasonably administered ”—per Russell C.J. Apart from this I cannot regqrd this by-law in itsnature as unreasonable or unnecessary. I accordingly hold that thisregulation is not ultra vires.
The appeal fails and must be dismissed,
I L. R. (1898) a Q. rs. ft.
MATALE POLICE v. MURUGESU