( 357 ■)
Present: The Hon. Mr. A. G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice.PELIS APPUHAMI v. PERERA.
P. C., Negombo, 5,586.
Toll token exigible—Authorized place for collecting toll—Notice—Ordi-nance No. 3 of 1896, m. 4, 10, 17, 19, and 21.
Under section 21 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1898 (the Tolls Ordinance)a definiteplace most be appointedforthe collectionoftoll; and
toll is notexigible unless such place hasbeenpassed.*
The ’ place at which the notice required by section 17 of the Ordi-nance is suspended, is the authorized place for the collection of toll;and a person who does not pass such place is not liable to pay toll.
HE accused was charged under section 21 of Ordinance No. 3 of1896 in that he, being liable to payment of Re. 1.50 toll in
respect of a padda-boat, did fraudulently take his padda-boat underthe bridge atthe entrance of the Negombocanal.It appearedfrom
the evidencethat the accused passedthebridgebutdidnotpass
the toll station. The accused was convicted and fined Rs. 50.
H. A. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
Sampaya, K.C., for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
5th October, 1906. Lasoellbs A.C-.J.—
The appellant, who is a tindal in the employment of the CeylonTea Plantations Co., was convicted under section 21 of the TollsOrdinance (No. 3 of 1896) on the charge that he, being liable to pay-ment of Re. 1.50 toll in respect of a padda-boat, did fraudulentlytake his padda-boat under the bridge at the entrance of the canal.The appellant appeals from this conviction on the ground that hedid not take his boat past the place duly appointed for the collectionof tolls.
The circumstances in which the appeal has risen are as follows.Section 4 ol Ordinance No. 3 of 1896 provides that toll shall be leviedinter alia in respect of the canals mentioned, in schedule. E. Thisschedule includes the Negombo canal. Section 10 provides that tollsshall be collected at the places specified in schedule F. ScheduleF under the heading “ Canals ” specifies the place of collection forthe Negombo canal as follows:—“Negombo, at or near the Fridge(at the entrance of the canal) on the Custom-house road, and at or
( 358 )
near the bridge at Pallansena at the junction of the canal with theKammal ferry As a matter of fact the toll station has been fixedat a point 154 yards on the Negombo side of the custom-house bridge
The appellant on the day in question, coming from Colombo, pass-ed under the bridge and discharged his cargo at Mr. Carey’s store,which is situated between the bridge and the toll station about 34yards on the Colombo- side of the latter. The appellant contendsthat he is not liable to toll, inasmuch as he did not pass the tollstation. The renter on the other hand contends that,- though, asa matter of convenience, the toll station has been fixed 154 yardsfrom the bridge, he is nevertheless entitled to pay toll on all boatspassing under the bridge.
It is clear that section 21 contemplates a definite fixed point onthe. road or canal being appointed for the collection of toll, and thattoll is not exigible unless the point has been passed.
The question for determination is, where is the exact place wheretoll is exigible in a case like the present, where the schedule definesthe place of collection as “at or near ” a certain place ? In myopinion the answer is supplied by sections 17 and 19 of the Ordinance,which require every toll-keeper, under pain of punishment, to keepsuspended “ at some conspicuous place immediately adjoining anyplace at which tolls are hereby authorized to be collected ” a noticespecifying the amount of toll payable and certain other particulars.The place where the notice is suspended thus indicates the authorizedplace for collecting tolls. In the present case the notice, as mightbe expected, was suspended at the toll station. The toll station musttherefore be taken to be the place at which, toll is authorized to becollected, and as the appellant did not pass that place he cannotlawfully be convicted.
The conviction must be quashed.
PELIS APPUHAMI v. PERERA