080-NLR-NLR-V-18-ASPIN-v.-SAMSUDEEN.pdf
1915.
( 286 )
Present: De Sampayo A.J.
ASPIN v. SAMSUDEEN.436—P. C. Kandy, 6,580.
>
Transporting arrack without a permit—Cooly carrying six bottle* of arrackbelonging to three persons—Ordinance No. 8 of 1912, #. 12 (Nothfixation No. 7).
Three persons each bought two bottles ^of arrack, ami gave thesix bottles to the aoeusedi a cooly, to carry. The accused had nopermit.
Held, that the accused was guilty of an offence under section 12of the Excise Ordinance (Notification No. 7).
(jp HE facts are set out in the judgment.
Bawa, K. C., Acting 8.-G., for the appellant.—The acquittal waswrong. It has been held that mens rea is not necessary for .aconviction for possessing excisable article in contravention of thesection. If the fact that the arrack was the property of three personswas a sufficient defence, it would not be possible to work the section.
No appearance for respondent.
Cur. odv. vult.
June 11, 1915. De Sampayo A.J.—
• This is a prosecution under section 43 (a) of the Excise Ordinance,No. 8 of 1912, for transporting without a permit six bottles ofarrack, in contravention of section 12 of the Ordinance andNotification No. 7 issued thereunder. The accused was caught inthe act of. carrying six bottles of arrack at Hantana road. Hisexplanation was that three persons had each bought two bottles ofarrack at the Castle Hill tavern and had given him all the six bottlesto be taken to Earyagala estate. The three persons, whom he namedand called as his witnesses, appear to be brothers or cousins, andthe arrack was bought for the purposes of a social ceremony at thehouse of one of them, who is a kangany on the estate. All thearrack was bought at the same time, and was to be taken to thesame place. The Police Magistrate, however, held that, as thearrack belonged to three persons equally, the rule which prohibitedthe transport of arrack in excess of one-third of an imperial gallonwas not contravened, and acquitted the accused, whom he consideredto be a simple cooly and ignorant that he was doing anything wrong.The Attorney-General has appealed.
In my opinion the ownership of the arrack has nothing to do withthe particular charge made against the accused. The act of trans-porting under certain circumstances itself constitutes the offence, ,
( 287 )
and it does not matter whetner the quantity so transported wasoriginally purchased by one person or by several. To hold otherwisewould be to permit persons, who ate qg minded, easily to defeat theintention of the Legislature by pretending to buy each a smallquantity but on the whole exceeding the limit. Nor is guiltyknowledge required in this class of cases. Ignorance is not anexcuse, though it may affect the amount of punishment.
The order of acquittal is set aside. The accused is convicted onthe charge made against him, and is sentenced to pay a. fine of Rs. 5,and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for aperiod of seven days.
ms.
Db SampayoAJ.
Asptn v.fSamaudtm
Set aside.