020-NLR-NLR-V-69-C.-M.-PERERA-Petitioner-and-PAUL-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
94H. N. G. FERNANDO, S.P.J.—Paul Raj v. Thirimavitkana
1935Present : H. N. O. Fernando,, S.P.J.
M. PAUL RAJ and another, Appellants, and D. THIRIMAVITHANA(Inspector of Weights and Measures), Respondent
5. C. 1477-78164—M. C. Galle, 26839
Charge o] possessing, jor use in trade, weights without prescribed marks of verification—Burden of proof—Weights and Measures Ordinance—Regulation 159.
Where, in a prosecution for possessing, for use in trade, weights without themarks of verificat ion prescribed by regulation 159 of the Regulations made underthe Weights and Measures Ordinance, there is prima facie evidence that theofficial marks could have been obliterated owing to inefficient or unsatisfactorystamping by the authorised officer, the burden ia on the complainant to leadevidence as to the official method of stamping.
A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Galle.
0. S. Barr Kumarahulasinghe, with K. Ratnesar, for Accused-Appellants.
U■ O. B. Ratnayake, Crown Counsel, for Attorney-General.
April 8,1965. H. N. G. Fernando, S.P.J.—
The appellants were convicted on a charge of having in their possessionfor use in trade, certain weights—four in number, which were found on1st January, 1963, not to have been stamped within the preceding 12months with the mark of verification prescribed by regulation 159 of theRegulations made under the Weights and Measures Ordinance, 1955.Apparently the method of stamping is to affix a mark on a lead filling inthe bottom portion of a weight. Counsel for the appellants has pointedout that the mark of verification is prescribed and depicted in the scheduleto the regulations and this was not contested by Crown Counsel.
The Inspector who stated that he found those weights unstamped hassaid, however, that the stamping is done by Officers of the Weights andMeasures Department with a Crown and the month and the year ofstamping. In this particular case the authority responsible for stampingand verification is not the Weights and Measures Department, but theMunicipality of Galle and there is no evidence from any officer of the GalleMunicipality as to their method of stamping. The defence, however, didproduce a document, Dl, which is a certificate, certified by an Inspectorof Weights and Measures, certifying to the verification and stamping of anumber of weights belonging to the second accused who is the proprietorof the shop in which the unstamped weights were found. Of these fourweights, one of them does have, according to the Magistrate and theInspector, the figure 61 ; but apparently does not have either the Crownmark or anything resembling the mark depicted in the schedule to theregulations. The fact that this one weight has what appears to be an
ABEYE8UNDERE, J.—Perera v. Perera
66
official stamping lends support to the position of the defence that theseweights are covered by the Certificate issued in February, 1962, but thatthe stamping on the lead could have been obliterated between then andJanuary, 1963.
In the absence of evidence from an officer of the Municipal Council ofGalle to explain the Council’s practice and to explain the absence of theprescribed mark on a weight which, prima facie, seems to have beenstamped by the Municipality of Galle, the evidence does not establishwith certainty that these four weights were not, in fact, stamped inFebruary, 1962. It may well be that the mode of stamping is inefficientor unsatisfactory and that the marks can become obliterated. The appealsare allowed and sentences are set aside.
Appeal allowed.