019-NLR-NLR-V-15-GOONETILLEKE-v.-SAINERIS.pdf
( B7 )
Present : Wood Benton J.
GOONETJLLEKE v. SAINERIS.638—P. C. Negombo, 16,876.
Arrack—Possessionof less than twoquarts—Nooffence—Ordinance
No. 10 of 1844, s. 32.
The possession of less than two quarts of arrack is not an offenceunder section 33 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844.
fjp TTE facts are set out in the judgment.
L. H. de Alwis, for the accused, appellant, relied on Endonis deSilva, v. Shona1
Walter Pereira, K. C.y S-G' heard amicus ounce.
October 12, 1911. Wood Renton *J.—
The accused-appellant has been convicted under section 32 ofOrdinance No. 10 of 1844 of having possed nine gills of arrack notlegally sold to him by a licensed retail dealer, and has been orderedtb pay a fine of Rs. 50, It was argued on behalf of the appellantthat the conviction was bad on the ground that the possession of lessthan two quarts of spirits is not an offence under section 32 of theOrdinance of 1844. After hearing his counsel and the learnedSolicitor-General as amicus curia, I feel bound to uphold thiscontention. Section 32 itself says nothing as to the quantity ofSpirits the possession of which is unlawful, unless it can be broughtwithin one of the exceptions which are embodied in the section. It -was held, however, in the case of Endonis de Silva v. Shona1 thatpossession of arrack in less quantity than two quarts is not anoffence within the meaning of section 32 of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844.
I am not aw'are of any other authority directly in point. But thatcase is one of old standing, and I think that I ought to follow it.
I am all the more disposed to do this because section 33 of theOrdinance allows, by implication, arrack in any quantity notexceeding two quarts to be removed without a permit, and therebyseems to imply that such a quantity of arrack may be possessedwithout any offence being committed- I set aside the convictionand sentence, and direct the acquittal of the accused.
Set aside.
mu
* (1876) Ram. 18721878, 315.