( 275 )
Present: Pereira J.
8ANITAEY BOARD INSPECTOR OP AMBALANGODAr. LAWNERIS.
604—P. C. Balapitiya, 37,709.
Exposing betel for sale at a place other than a public market—By-lameframed by the Sanitary Board, Oalle—Is betel " vegetable *' withinthe meaning of the by-lato t
A by-law of the Sanitary Board of the district of Galle prohibitedthe exposure for sale of 44 any meat, poultry, fish, fresh frnit, orvegetable in any place other than the public market."
HMK that the exposure for sale of the betel leaf was notobnoxious to this by-law.
HE facts are set out in the indictment.
A, St. V. Jayewardene, for accused, appellant.—The by-law isonlv aimed at articles used for food, such as meat, fruit, andvegetables, which are used for culinary purposes, and which areusually taken to the market for sale. All vegetables do not fallunder the meaning of the word “ vegetable ” as used in this section.The context makes it clear that only vegetables used as articles offood are prohibited from being sold outside .the market.
No appearance for the respondent.
July 25, 1913. Pereira J.—
The accused in this case has been convicted of publicly exposingfor sale the betel leaf at a place other than the public market ofAmbalangoda, in contravention of by-law D (2) of the by-laws madeby the Sanitary Board of the district of Galle under the Small TownsSanitary Ordinance, No. 30 of 1908, in respect of the towns ofAmbalangoda and Dodanduwa. The by-law prohibits the exposurefor sale of “ any meat, poultry, fish, fresh fruit, or vegetable in anyplace other than the public market/’ The question is whether .theword tf vegetable ” as used in the by-law is/intended to include thebetel leaf. I have no hesitation in answering the question in thenegative. Of course, the word “ vegetable/’ in one sense, meansanything included in that division of natural objects known as the“ vegetable kingdom,” but the word is also used-in a more limitedsense to mean “ a plant used for culinary purposes, and cultivatedin gardens and there can be no doubt that the word is used in theby-law in question in this limited sense. Clearly, the exposure forsale, outside the market, of grass or cereals, although they are
SanitaryBoardInspector, ofAmbatan•goda v.Laumeris
( 276 )
undoubtedly vegetables in one sense, would not be deemed to beobnoxious to the by-law; and the complainant himself would notinclude within the term “ vegetable ” used in the by-law arecanuts,coconuts, and potatoes, although I fail to see the reason for theexclusion in the case of the last-mentioned article. There is, inthe very terms of tbe by-law, sufficient indication that the word** vegetable ” is used in it-in the limited sense mentioned above. Itis used in one category with other things subjected to culinary.processes, namely, meat, poultry, and fish, and the only other objectmentioned in this category iB “ fresh fruit,’* which, if the word*' vegetable ” were not used in the limited sense referred to above,need not have been mentioned in the by-law at all.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
SANITARY BOARD INSPECTOR OF AMBALANGODA v. LAWNERIS