038-NLR-NLR-V-74-D.-K.-GUNAWARDENA-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-RATNAPURA-Respondent.pdf
142 SAMERAWtCKRAME, j.—Qunatcardena v. Inspector of Police, Ratnapum
1970Present: Samerawickxame, J.
IC. GUNAWARDENA, Appellant, andINSPECTOR OF POLICE, RATNAPURA, Respondent
S. C. 441169—M. C. Ratnapum, 3174S
Control of Prices Act {Cap. 173)—Subsections (l)and{7) of s. 4—Price Order—Proof—Evidence Ordinance, a. 91.
A conviction for soiling sugar at an excessive price in contravention of aPrice Orclor that is governed by subsections (1) and (7) of the Control of PricosAct would not bo valid unloss the Magistrate lias stated in his order that heha3 taken judicial notice of the Trice Order or else the prosecuting officer hasat least said in ovidonco that the Prico Ordor was in operation in the area ontho date of the alleged offence.
./PPEAL from a judgment of tho Magistrate's Court, Ratnapura.
Sid a l Sri Nandalochana, for the accused-appellant.
K.Wijayatilake, Crown Counsel, for tho Attornoy-General.
Cur. adv. vuU.
December 16, 1970. Samerawickrame, J.—
The appellant was convicted of an offence under the Control of PricesAct on tho ground that he sold two pounds of white sugar for Rc. l-40,a price in excess of the maximum controlled price of Re. 136. Thodecoy did not stato that ho inquired from the appellant the price of apound of sugar but he stated.that he asked for two pounds of sugarand tendered a two-rupee note and was given GO cents change. It isbecause the odd 4 cents change was not given that the appellant isalleged to have committed the offence.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that therowas no proof that tho controlled prico of white sugar was 68 cents perpound becauso tho Prico Order has not been produced. He submittedthat in view of Section 91 of tho Evidence Ordinance the controller!price of white sugar coukl only be proved by the production of the Gazettein which the Price Order was published. It is correct that the controlledprice is to be ascertained from tho Price Order. The Price Order aswell as tho Government Gazette in which it was published have beenreferred to in the charge. As no fact of which the Court will take judicialnotice need bo proved, the production of tlie Gazette containing thePrice Order was not necessary if the Court was prepared to take judicialnotice of the Order.
The Prico Order referred to in the charge is one made by the Controllerin terms of s. 4 (1) of the Control of Prices Act (Cap. 173). Though
Subramaniam v. Liyanagc
143
such an Order by itself is sufficient to maintain tho chargo it is onlywhere the Order is approved by tho Minister and notification of suchapproval is published in the Gazette that tho Order is " to bo deemed tobe as valid and effectual as if it were herein enacted. ” vide s. 4 (7) oftho Act. The Price Order has been made on 5th November, 1964,which is nearly 3 years prior to the date of the alleged offence, namely31st August, 1967. Price Orders of commodities liko sugar are oftenchanged and the Order itself refers to two previous Food Price Ordersrevoked by it which had been made in the course of tho previous year.In the circumstances, I think that the prosecuting officer should atleast have undertaken to say in evidence that tho Price Order referredto in tho charge was in operation in the area on tho date the offence isalleged to have been committed. Thero is no such evidence. Evenin the absence of such evidence tho Court may take judicial notice of f hofact that tho Price Order was in operation but the learned magistratehas not stated in his order that he lias taken judicial notice of it and,in the circumstances of this case, sitting in appeal, I do not proposeto do so.
I allow tho appeal and set aside the conviction and tho sentence passedon the accused-appellant.
Appeal allowed.