116-NLR-NLR-V-22-ABEYASURIYA-v.-JAYASEKERA.pdf
( 380 )
1821.
Present: Schneider AJ.
ABEYASURIYA v. JAYASEKERA158—D. C. Matara, 22,214.
Sale of rice over control price—Defence of the Colony Regulations, 1919—
Sale to four persons — One trial — Particulars not specified in
charge.
The accused was oharged with having sold rice over the controlprice. The charge did not give particulars as to the quantitysold or to whom the rice was sold. Four witnesses were calledto prove that on the day in question accused sold to each of thema bag of rice for over the control price.
Held, that the conviction was bad, as the charge did not givenecessary particulars, and as the accused was apparently convictedof four distinct offences.
rj^HE facts appear from the judgment.
Keuneman, for appellant.
March 4,1921. Schneider AJ.—
The proceedings in this oaseappearto havecommencedwith a com-plaint in writing signed by the complainant, who is described asVidane Axaohchi, Local Board, Matara, and signed also by the DeputyFood Controller and Assistant Government Agent, Matara, asindicating that he authorized the prosecution. Upon this complaintin writing, the Magistrate directed summons to issue against theaccused. The summons was to the effect that the accused did,on January 7,1921, at Kotuwegoda, sell rice at Rs. 18*50 per bag,in excess of the control price, namely, Rs. 17*75 per bag, and thathe had thereby committed an offence punishable under regulation1 (3) of the Defence of the Colony Regulations, 1919. When theaccused appeared in obedience to the summons, the charge wasread to him from the summons, and the trial proceeded. Thereis the evidence of four witnesses who speak to four distinct purchasesby each of them on the day in question of a bag of rice for Rs. 18 * 50.The accused was convicted and fined Rs. 50. On appeal it wassubmitted that the conviction was bad for three reasons: First,because the charge did not give the particulars as to the quantitysold, and to whom sold ; secondly, that the accused appears to havebeen convicted of four distinct offences, namely, the sale to thefour witnesses; and, thirdly, that there was no legal proof of thecontrolled price of the rice. It seems to me that all these threeobjections are entitled to prevail, and that the first and secondof them are fatal to the conviction. It should also be pointed outthat the Magistrate had not insisted with the strict compliance of
( 381 )
the provision in section 148 (1) (a), which requires that in the caseof a summary offence a complaint, if in writing, shall be drawn andcountersigned by a pleader and signed by the complainant.
The faults which are apparent in the proceedings in this casehave been considered by this Court in the case of Inspector of Police,Ambalangoda, v. Fernando,1 Duraya v. Appuhamy* and Miskin v.Babun Appu.3 I would, therefore, set aside the conviction on theground that the charge was deficient, as not containing essentialparticulars, and illegal, as having included four distinct offences.I quash these proceedings and ,acquit the accused, but withoutprejudice to any proceedings which may be duly taken in respectof any offence he may have committed on the day in question inrespect to the sale of rice.
Accused acquitted.
1981.
SOHNBIDBB
A.J.
Abeya&tiriyav. Jayastkira
♦