066-NLR-NLR-V-73-A.-L.-MOHIDEEN-Appellant-and-SUB-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-MOUNT-LAVINIA-Responde.pdf
3S2 TJIAMOTHEKAM, J.—-Voh idem r. Sub-Inspector of Police, yiouul Jyiiinia
1970Present : Thamofhoram, J.
A. L. MOHIDEEN, Appellant, and SUB-INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, MOUNT LAVIXL4, Respondent
S. C. 72S/G9—.*17. C. Colombo South, 97315/A
Control of Prices Act {Cap. 173)—Price Order of ISth August 1067—"Beef (withbones)
Spelling a quantity of beof together with ft quantity of bonoa is a saJo of“ boof (with bones) " within the meaning of that expression in the PriceOrder of ISt-h August 1067.
.AlPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, ColomboSouth.
G. Ranganathan, Q.C., with G. D. C. Weerasinghe, for the accused-appellant-.
R.GnnatiUeke, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult. ■
August 7, 1070. Thamotheram, J.—
The accused was charged with selling one pound of beef (with bones)for Ro. 1*25, a price in. excess of the maximum controlled price of Re.1-10—an offence under Sections (1) of the Control of Prices Act (Cap. 173)and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section S (6) ofthe said Act, as amended by the Control of Prices (Amendment) Acts,Nos. 44 of 1957 and 16 of 1966.
THA-MOTHERA>I, J.—XIohidtcn r. Sub-Inspector of Police, J fount Lacinia 363
Tho facts in this case are not in dispute. P. C. S230 Bandusena of theIVIt. Lavinia Police acted as a decoy. He was searched by Sub-InspectorGunaratne who gave him a marked Rs. 2 note with instructions to buyone pound beef (with bones). P. C. Bandusena asked the accused forone pound of beef (with bones). The accused cut a piece of beef from achunk hanging at the stall, put it into weighing balance, put some bonesthat were on the table, weighed it, wrapped it in a Habarala leaf and apiece of newspaper and handed over to him. When the Police partyrushed, on a given signal, P. C. Bandusena told them that ho was chargedRe. 1 ”25 for one pound of beef (with bones). The accused tried to swallowtho Rs. 2 note, but was prevented by the Police Officer present.
The only point pressed in appeal was that thi6 was a sale of beef andbones and not beef (with bones) and that therefore the price order didnot apply to tho facts of this case.
The Control of Prices Act (Cap. 173) is an Act to provide for theregulation and control of the price of commodities. This is the only» object of the Act and of any price order made thereunder.
The price order relevant to the present case appears in GovernmentGazette No. 1-1761./12 of ISth August, 1967. This order fixes tho maximumprices per pound above which beef of the description and grade specifiedshall not be sold. It directs that for the purpose of this order the expres-sion “ beef ” shall mean flesh or meat, cattle or buffalo and shall excludeany form of offal. It also directs that when beef is 6old (with bones)the weight of the bones sold therewith shall not exceed 25 per cent, of thetotal weight sold. The order furthcistatcs that when bcef(without bones)or beef (with bones) is sold together with offal in the course of one trans-action the beef (with bones) or beef (without bones) shall be weighedand sold separately from the offal. According to this order, every traderwho sells beef of the description and grade mentioned in the scheduleshall give the purchaser of the beef on demand : (a) the date of the sale ;(6) the quantity of the beef sold (by weight) ; (c) the description of beefsold ; and (d) the price paid for the quantity of beef sold.
I have set out above the provisions of the order which arc relevant tothe point raised by Counsel for the appellant. The following commentsmay bo made in regard to them
Offal does not come within the description of beef and thereforetho mixing of offal with beef for purposes of 6alc by weight isprohibited.
(ii) Beef is described and graded for purposes of the order as : (a) beef(without bones); (b) becr (with bones); (c) beef (dead weight).
We are not here concerned with (c) above. Beef (without bones) wouldbe where the flesh is separated from the bones. This has to bo so neces-sarily. Beef (with bones) includes beef which i6 not separated from the
354 -XHA MOTHER AM, J.—Moliidfcn v. Sub-Inspector oj Police, Mount Lorinia
bones. The question I have to decide here is whether this descriptiononly applies to such a case or whether it indudes a sale where the quantityof beef sold includes both flesh and bones. The seller is nowhere requiredto sell beef (with bones) as one unseparated whole. The requirement thatwhen beef (with bones) is sold tho bones do not weigh more than 25 percent, would suggest that in appropriate cases the seller is free to separatethe bones from flesh to ensure that he does not commit a breach of thisrequirement. This requirement is impossible of observance only if there isa requirement that beef (with bones) should be sold as an unseparatedwhole. An individual customer may want it as an unseparated whole foran}' special reason such as for “ chops As remarked earlier, the PriceControl Order is only concerned with regulating prices and is notconcerned with the customer’s special requirements.
The phrases “ with bones ” or “without bones” are descriptions of thebeef sold and affects the grade of beef sold. Beef (with bones) is of alower grade and priced less. Any quantity of beef is Eold by weight andwhere the quantity sold has both flesh and bones, it is a sale of beef(with bones). Where the quantity sold ha6 flesh alone, it is a sale of beef(without bones). In this view of the matter “ with bones ” means no• more than " together with boncB The requirement that when beefis sold with bones the weight of the bones 6old therewith Bhall not exceed25 per cent, of the total weights sold supports this view.
I hold that the Price Control Order in question applies to the facts ofthis case and that the accused has been rightly convicted.
Mr. Ranganalhan asked that in any event Ishould deal with the accusedunder Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the accused is afirst offender and as he had charged only 15 cents more on a pound. .I am unable to do this. Under the Amending Act, jail sentence must begiven to a first offender. The accused has charged 15 cents more wherethe price is fixed at Re. 1T0. This is not a small percentage of the pricewhich he could legitimately have charged. There are no mitigatingeircumstances for me to act under Section 325.
I reduce the jail sentence from six weeks to four weeks which is theminimum jail sentence required by the Amending Act. Subject to thisvariation the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal mainly dismissed.