ABBYKBUNBBRg, S.=AUaneyOtneral v, Rahim810
IMSPrmnt; Abeyosundsre, J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and A. M, A.RAHIM, Respondent
8. 0. 1044IM—M. 0. Colombo South, OhirOjA
Prist eettlrel enter—F§m=Oharge of tnlt of her/ at eient prtee^Bunten qj proof sMeaning qj empreitiqn " bee/"^(Jenfrel qf Priest Ael,»», S (It), 4 (I),
When a firiee emitrel order I* mode tty the Oeetroller, the citation of thepower conferred by xection 4 of the Oontrel of Prlee* Aet Is sufficient to indicatethe existence of the eireumstaneos in whieh the power is exercised,
Where, in a prosecution for contravention of a price control order relating toIteef, the expression " beef" is defined in the Order as including any kind ofbeef other than imported beef or any efffel, the burden ia on the prosecution toprove that the beef referred to In the charge was not imported beef or anyoffal.
The word 11 beef" includes meat of the buffalo.
ApLjEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Colombo South.L, Ji, T, Pmmmtnt, Senior Crown Counsel, for Complainant-Appellant.
Colvin II, tie Silva, with M, M, Kutmrakulwingham and N, S. A.Qometilkke, for Accused-Respondent,
November 17, lOflfl, ABSVBSUNoims, J.=
This Is an appeal by a Food and Prlee Control Inspector against an ordermade by the magistrate of Colombo South eourt In a ease where a personwas prosecuted for selling beef with bones at a prlee above the prleoHxed by the order dated 14th October, 1004, and made under the Controlof Prlees Aet.
Crown Counsel who appears for the appellant submits that the learnedmagistrate was wrong In holding that the expression ' beef did not Ineludothe flesh of a buffalo, that the prleo control order was invalid as It failedto reelte that thero was a searelty or any unreasonable Increase In theprlee of beef and that the burden was en the preseeutlen to prove thatthe beef to whieh the eharge related was beef of the description containedIn paragraph III of the price control order. The accused In this easehave been acquitted on the three grounds whieh are now contested bythe appellant.
The price control order mentions that the order Is made by virtue ofthe powers vested In the Assistant Controller of Prices (food) for theColombo District by section 4 read with section 3 (2) of the Control ofPrices Aet. Seetion 4(1) of the Aet enables a prlee control order to bomade In respeet of any articles If It appears to the Controller that them
8M Velum* USX
Achchikuddy v. Kriahnar
is, or is likely to arise, in any part of Ceylon any shortage of that articleor any unreasonable increase in the price of that article. The citationof the power conferred by section 4 is sufficient to indicate the existence ofthe circumstences in which the power is exercised. I hold that it isunnecessary for a price control order, which cites the power under whichthe order is made, to state that it appears to the officer making the orderthat there is, or is likely to arise, in any part of Ceylon any shortageof the article to which the order applies or any unreasonable increase inthe price of that article.
The price control order in this case defines the expression ‘ beef ’ byexcluding therefrom imported beef whether frozen, salted or chilledor any form of offal. That expression, as defined, includes any kindof beef other than imported beef or any offal. The dictionary meaning ofthe word ‘beef’ includes meat of the buffalo. The expression ‘beef’in the price control order therefore includes buffalo meat which has notbeen imported and which is not offal. I hold that the price controlorder in question applies to such buffalo meat.
In view of the fact that the expression ‘ beef’, as defined in the pricecontrol order, does not include imported beef and offal, it was incumbenton the prosecution in this case to have proved that- the beef referred toin the charge was beef which was not imported into Ceylon and whichwas not offal. The prosecution has failed to adduce such proof. Therewas thus no proof that the beef referred to in the charge was beef inrespect of which the price control order applied. On this ground alone,the accused in this case was entitled to an acquittal.
For the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss the appeal.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,Appellant, and A. M. A. RAHIM, Respondent