DE SILVA J.—Sekathi v. Davoodu.
1946Present ; de Silva J.
SEKATHI, Appellant, and DAVOODU, Respondent.
429—M. C. Putlaknn, 33,149.
Toll rent—Chargeable on salt carried by boat to a particular place—Toll notleviable if boat merely touches at that place—Tolls Ordinance (Cap. ISO),88. 19, 20.
Where toll rent was chargeable in respect of salt transported in a boatto a particular place, K-<-
U eld, that salt carried to a destination other than K was not liable totoll even though the boat carrying the salt touched at K.
PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court, Puttalam.
H. W. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
No appearance for the complainant, respondent.
June 26, 1946. de Silva J.—
In this case, the charge made against the accused was that he, being atindal of a boat, transported by boat from Puttalam to Kalpitiya 219 cwt.of salt without paying to the complainant a sum of Rs, 109 • 50 due onaccount of toll and that he had thereby committed an offence punishableunder sections 19 and 20 of Chapter 150 of the Legislative Enactments,Vol. IV. After trial, the Magistrate found that the evidence of theprosecution that salt was unloaded at Kalpitiya was false and that thesalt had been taken to Kalpitiya for the purpose of obtaining a permitto take the salt to another destination. The Magistrate, on his findings,convicted the accused and fined him a sum of Rs. 50 of which he orderedthat Rs. 45 be paid to the complainant as compensation for toll rent.
It is clear that toll can be charged only in respect of certain goodstransported to Kalpitiya or to a place within one mile on either side ofKalpitiya. The concession of charging toll rent is given to the complain-ant who carries on a ferry service between Puttalam and Kalpitiya.One of the conditions in his licence is that no toll rent shall be charged forany salt carried from Puttalam to any place other than Kalpitiya and onemile on either side of the jetties at the said places. It seems clear thatsalt carried to a destination other than Kalpitiya or within a mile oneither side of Kalpitiya is not liable to toll even though the boat carryingthe salt touches at Kalpitiya. I set aside the conviction and acquit theaccused.
SEKATHI , Appellant, and DAVOODU, Respondent