087-NLR-NLR-V-46-GOONERATNE-Appellant-and-THOMIS-Respondent.pdf
Gooneratne and Thomis.
259
1955
– Present: Howard C.J.GOONERATNE, Appellant, and THOMIS, Respondent.
462—M. G. Galle, 44,434.
Defence (Control of Prices) (Supplementary Provision) Regulation 6—Keepingstock of controlled articles in premises—Small quantity of onions forretail trade—Premises not a store or other place.
The accused was charged under regulation 6 of the Defence (Control ofPrices) Regulations with keeping a stock of controlled articles, viz.,two bags of red onions at premises, which is not a registered store,without furnishing to the Controller a return specifying such store orother place.
{1880) 44 L. T. R. 187 at 188.
960
HOWARD C.J.—Goonerotne and Thomis.
The evidence established that the onions were found_ in the upstairsof the premises occupied by the accused where he carried on a retailtrade.
Held, that the accused had not offended against the provisions ofthe regulation.
^ FPEAL against an acquittal by'the Magistrate of Galle.
T. K. Curtis, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.
S. Barr Kumarakulasingham for accused, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
May 22, 1945. Howard C.J.—
The complainant in this case, with the sanction of the Attorney-General, appeals from a judgment of the Magistrate, Galle, acquitting therespondent on a charge under Regulation 6 of the Defence (Control ofPrices) (Supplementary Provisions) of keeping on December 18,1944,
a stock of price-controlled articles, to wit, 2 bags of red onions weighing1 cwt. 1 qr. 26 lbs., at premises No. 19, Fowl .Market, Galle, which is nota registered store without furnishing to the Controller a return specifyingsuch store or other place. The evidence for the Crown was supplied by aPrice Control Inspector stationed at Galle and a similar officer in chargeof the register kept at Colombo under the above-mentioned regulation.On the evidence of the latter officer it was established—
that red onions are controlled articles within the Galle Municipalarea;
(It) that No. 19, Fowl Market Stores, was not a registered store undersection 5 of the Regulations;
(c) that the respondent did not make any return prior to December18, 1944, specifying that he had any quantity of red onions insuch premises.
It was proved by the Price Control Inspector, Galle, that on December18, 1944, he went to No. 19, Fowl Market Street, Galle, and on searchingthe premises he found two bags of red onions upstairs in the building.The onions were weighed in the presence of the respondent who said heoccupied the premises and carried on business there. The onions weighed1 cwt. 1 qr. 26 lbs. This witness also stated that the respondent had aMunicipal licence to. sell things, but. he did not know if he was a retail orwholesale dealer.
The respondent in giving evidence stated that he did retail' businessand had purchased the onions in Colombo for the purpose of retail trade.
The Magistrate, although of .opinion that the onions were surrepti-tiously kept for purposes of sale in the black market, held that there wasno evidence to hold that the place where the red otdons were found wasa place in the nature of a store. He also stated that the object of the
HOWARD f.J.—Gcxmeratne and TKomis.
281
regulations was to prevent hoarding and the respondent did not hoardthe onions on .the day in question. The Magistrate, therefore, acquitted,the respondent.
Regulation 6 of the Regulations in question is worded as follows: —
‘' Every person who desires to keep any stock or quantity of anyprice-controlled article at any store or other place which is not aregistered store, shall furnish to the Controller a return specifying suchstore or other place, and the Controller may in respect of 6uch store orother place exercise the powers conferred on him by Regulation 5.”
Regulations, 2, 3. 4 and 5 refer to persons carrying on business as importersor wholesale traders in the particular article. Regulation 6 enables theController to treat persons other than importers or wholesale traderswho desire to keep any stock or quantity of any price-controlled articleat any store or place ” as if they were within the ambit of Regulation 5.Regulation 7 enables the Controller to call upon persons having in theirpossession any quantity of a price-controlled article in excess of a certainamount to furnish a return setting out the quantity of such article in theirpossession and the premises at which such quantity is kept. The re-spondent in this case was not an importer or wholesale trader nor hadhe been called upon for a return under Regulation 7. The only questionfor me to decide is whether the Magistrate was right in holding that it wasnot established that the respondent had in his possession “ a stock orquantity of red onions at any store or other place not a registered store.”
The question as to whether a house not registered as a store where aquantity of a price-controlled article was found constituted ‘‘ a store orother place ” was considered by. Keuneman J. in Panditharatme v.Koutsz1. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge stated asfollows: —
“ There are two factors of importance. One is the large quantityof paper kept at the accused’s house. The other is the admission bythe accused that his house was utilized for the stocking of the paper foreconomical reasons. I think there is ■ sufficient evidence that thehouse ‘‘ Epsom ” can be regarded as a store or other place in the natureof a store. There can be-no question that it is substantially usedfor storing paper.”
In this case the amount of onions found on the premises was not a largequantity and might well have been purchased for purposes of retail sale.Nor can it be said that the premises or a large part of them were utilizedfor the storing of the onions. In this connection one must not be unmind-ful of the fact that onions are perishable articles. It has been laid downby this Court on numerous occasions that an appeal against an acquittalwill only succeed when it is perfectly clear to the Appellate Court that thefinding of the lower Court is erroneous. I am not satisfied in this casethat .the finding of the lower Court was erroneous. In these circumstancesthe appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1 44 N. L. R. 210.