Piyastna v. Inspector of Police, Foreshore Police
Present: Samerawlckrame, J.
A. M. A. PIYASENA, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OP POLICE,FORESHORE POLICE, Respondent8. C. 970170—J. M. C. Colombo, 39721Oustoms Ordinance (dap, 235)-—Section 101—Regulation 28 A (3) made thereunder—Charge of handling goods in contravention of it—Burden of proof.
Where a person ia oharged with handling goods in contravention of regulation26 A (3) of the regulations made under seotion 101 (1) of the Customs Ordinance,one of the most important ingredients that the prosecution must prove is thatthe act of handling was done in relation to oertain goods in the customs premises.
Jinadasa v. Foreshore Police (73 N. L. R. 45) followed.
1 (1333) 61 N. L. R. 255.
454 8AMERAWICKRAME, J.—Pigoaena v. Inspector of Polios, Portehore Police
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Joint Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.£>, W. Abeyakoon, for the aceusej,appellant.
N. J, yikqsaim, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. rail,
October 28,1971. Samebawiokramb, J.—
The charge against the appellant was that he had committed an offenceby contravening regulation 26A (3) of the regulations made by theMinister under a. 101 (1) of the Customs Ordinance. The regulation
in the customs premises without first informing a customs or policeofficer on duty. In the exeroise of the powers under s. 101 (2) the PrincipalCollector of Customs has defined customs premises. The definition isfound at page 979 in Volume IV (Cap. 235) of the Subsidiary Legislation1950.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no proofthat any handling of the goods, namely, A roll of khaki oloth (37 yardsin length) had taken place within, the customs premises. He relied onthe case of Jinadasa v. Foreshore Police'SJZ N.L.R. 45. In that caseTenuekoon, J., held that one of the most important ingredients thatthe prosecution must establish is that the act of handling was done inrelation to certain goods in the customs premises. In this case the chargealleged that the offence was committed at Guide Pier (Port of Colombo).There was no evidence at all that this Guide Pier fell within the customspremises as defined in the regulation referred to above, As a materialingredient of the offence has not been proved the conviction cannot stand,I allow the appeal and set aside the conviotion and sentence passed onthe appellant.
A. M. A. PIYASENA, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORESHORE POLICE, Respond