132-NLR-NLR-V-45-CHANDRASEKERE-Appellant-and-ASSISTANT-GOVERNMENT-AGENT-Respondent.pdf
Uhandrasekere and Assistant Government Agent.
477
1944Present: WU^yewardene J.CHANDEASEKEEE, Appellant, and ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT
AGENT, Respondent.
852—M. G. Negombo, 41,115.
Defence (Miscellaneous)Regulations—Requisitionof paddy—Issue of order
by competent authority—Regulations 2 and 37.
Wherethe competentauthorityacting under the Defence(Miscella-
neous) Regulations issued an order requiring the accused to deliverpaddy on a certain date and sent the Village Headman to the accused’®house to take delivery of the paddy,—
Held, that therequisitioning authorityacted withinthepower®
conferred on it under Regulation 2.
A PPEAL against a conviction by the Magistrate of Negombo.
"S7S WlJETEWARDENE J.—Chandrasekere and Assistant Government Agent
H. V. Perera, R.G. (with him Cyril E. 8. Perera), for the accused,appellant.
M. P. Spencer, C.C., for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 3, 1944. Wijeyewardene J.
The accused was convicted of an offence punishable under Regulations52(1) and 52(3a) of the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulations, and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days and pay a fineof Rs. 500. The charge against the accused was that “ he failed to deliver79 bushels of paddy to Government ” in compliance with the order P 2 ofAugust 12, 1943, issued by a competent authority under Regulation 37 ofDefence (Miscellaneous) Regulations.
It was first argued in support of the appeal that the evidence did notshow that the accused could have had 79 bushels of paddy on August 12,1943, andit was even urged that the evidenceestablished thatthe
quantity of paddy with the accused was less than 79 bushels. I haveexamined the evidence carefully and I find that theMagistratehas
reached a correct conclusion when he held that the accused had morethan the requisitioned quantity of paddy on August 12. The evidenceof the village headman, a brother of the accused, and the evidence of theJxachchericlerk afforded sufficient material forthefinding ofthe
Magistrate.Moreover, the documents P 3 andP 4written bythe
accused go a long way to disprove the plea put forward by him.
Towards the end of his argument the Counsel for the accused-appellantcontended that the order P 8 was ultra vires and in support of thatcontention he relied on Rex v. Loots l.
It is not necessary for me to consider that decision as I find that thelegal argument was based on an erroneous assumption of fact. In thepresent case the competent authority acting perhaps in an informalmanner asked the various producers including the accused to bringcertain quantities of paddy to the Hunumulla School for sale to Govern-ment. As the accused failed to accede to that request, the competentauthority then took action under the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulationsand issued the order P 2 requesting him to deliver the paddy on August 12and sent .the Village Headman to the accused’s house to take delivery ofthe 79 bags of paddy, but the accused failed to place them at his disposal.Regulation 2 defines “ to requisition ” as “to take possession of theproperty or to require the property to be placed at the disposal of therequisitioning authority ’’ and therefore the competent authority did notact ultra vires in issuing P 2 and sending the headman to receive thepaddy. It was not the case—as was incorrectly assumed in the courseof the argument—that the competent authority directed the accused todeliver the paddy at Hunumulla School on his being served with theRequisition Order P 2.
1 {1940) S. A. L. JR. (O. F. S. Provi. Division) 285.
WXJBYEWABDENE J.—Martyanayagam. and Basnayake.
479
The accused has pleaded in his petition of appeal that “ the sentence istoo excessive considering the age and character of the appellant Ithink the learned Magistrate has taken all these facts into considerationand treated him with considerable leniency.
I dismiss the appeal.
Affirmed.