454 WUEYEWAKDENE J.—Buppiaft v. de auvct [Jnspeetor of Police.)
1046Present: Wijeyewardene J.SUPPIAH et al., Appellants, and de SILVA (INSPECTOROF POLICE), Respondent.
086—1,088—M. C. Nuwara Eliya, 952.
Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations—Controlled Articles (Coconut Poonac)No. 2 Order, paras 10, 11—Transportation of coconut poonac—Properreceipts should be shown—Duty to show receipts to Police Officer.
In a prosecution for transporting coconut poonac in contravention ofparagraph 10 of the Controlled Articles (Coconut Poonac) No. 2 Order—Held, that receipts referring to coconut poonac were not per se sufficientevidence in defence when the case for the defence was that the poonacwas obtained on permits issued by the Controller of Sediment Poonac.
Held, further, that the accused should have shown the necessaryreceipts to the police officer at the time his vehicle was stopped forexamination.
PPEALS against three convictions from the Magistrate’s Court,Nuwara Eliya.
O.E. Chitty (with him C. de 8. Wijeyeratne), for the accused, appellants.8. Mahadevan, C.C., for the Crown.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 4, 1946. Wijeyewakdbnb J.—
The three accused were convicted on a charge of having transportedin a lorry 6,691 pounds of coconut poonac in contravention of paragraph10 of the Controlled Articles (Coconut Poonac) No. 2 Order made under
WIJEYEWARDENE J.—Suppiah v. da Silva (Inspector of Police.) 455
Regulation 43d of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations and publishedin the Government Gazette No. 9,333 of November 21, 1944.
Paragraph 10 of the Order enacts—
“ No person shall, on or after the appointed date, transport from anyplace to any other place in Ceylon any quantity oi any scheduledarticle, unless—
(a) “ in each case where such quantity was purchased or otherwiseacquired from a manufacturer or an authorised dealer, he hasin his possession the receipt issued by that manufacturer ordealer, as the case may be, in respect of that quantity ”.
The Police Officer who stopped the lorry found 9,491 pounds of poonaoin bags. The first accused was driving the lorry at the time and thesecond and third accused were seated by his side. The second accusedproduced a ** permit for the transport ” of 2,800 pounds of poonao andthe first accused produced receipt P2 for 1,120 pounds.
The only evidence against the third accused is that he was seated bythe first and second accused. There is nothing to suggest that he wasin any way concerned with the transportation of the poonac. I would,therefore, acquit him.
The prosecution is preferring the present charge for the transportationof 6,691 pounds of poonac after making a deduction in respect of the2,800 pounds of poonac for which the second accused produced PI whichthe Inspector of Police called “ a permit for transport ”.
The lorry is a vehicle owned by a Trading Company to transport thegoods of various customers. The second accused was apparentlyone such customer and he produced the document Pl for 2,800 pounds ofpoonac which the Trading Company was commissioned by him to carry.As pointed out by me that quantity of 2,800 pounds of poonac does notform a part of the 6,691 pounds of poonac mentioned in the charge.I am unable to sustain his conviction and I acquit him.
The evidence shows clearly that the first accused failed to producefor the examination of the Police Officer the necessary receipts, at leastin respect of 5,491 pounds of coconut poonac. A document D3 wasproduced in the course of the trial which was alleged to be a receipt forthe poonac in question. That receipt was in respect of 3,360 pounds ofpoonac. On the evidence before me I am not prepared to consider thatreceipt or P2 as having any reference to the poonac which was transportedthat day, in view of the fact that the case for the defence was that thepoonac was obtained from the manufacturers on the permits D1 and D2issued by the Controller of Sediment Poonac while the documents P2 andD3 refer to coconut poonac. Moreover, paragraph 11 of the Order showsthat the person in charge of the vehicle should have with him the receiptsmentioned in paragraph 10 for examination by the Police Officer stoppingthe vehicle. Clearly the first accused had no receipts except P2 in hispossession at the time his lorry was stopped.
I uphold the conviction of the first accused and dismiss his appeal.
Appeal of first accused dismissed.
Appeals of second and third accused allowed.
SUPPIAH et al , Appellants, and DE SILVA (INSPECTOR OF POLICE), Respondent