100-NLR-NLR-V-70-H.-L.-PIYADASA-Appellant-and-L.-H.-P.-YAPATILEKE-Food-and-Price-Control-Inspe.pdf
475
ABEYESUNDERE, J.—Piyadasa v. Yapatileke•
1968Present: Abeyesundere, J.H. L. PIYADASA, Appellant, and L. H. P. YAPATILEKE (Food andPrice Control Inspector), Respondent
8. G. 1132167—M. C. Matale, 699
•Control of Prices Act—Price control order relating to sale of Milk Maid CondensedMilk—Charge of selling a tin of 14 ozs. of such milk at excessive price—Burdenof proof relating to quantity of milk.
In a prosecution for soiling a tin of 14 ozs. of Milk Maid Condensed Milk inexcess of the maximum retail price fixed by a price control order in force underthe Control of Prices Act, it is incumbent on the complainant to lead evidenoethat the quantity of milk sold by the accused was 14 ozs. The statement on thelabel of the tin is hearsay and does not constitute evidence to prove theoontents of the tin.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Matale.
Nihal Jayaivickrame, for the accused-appellant.
V. S. A. Pullenayegum, Senior Crown Counsel, with Lalith Rodrigo,Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
March 31, 1968. Abeyesundere, J.—
In this case the accused was charged with selling one tin of 14 ozs. ofMilk Maid condensed milk above the maximum retail price fixed by aprioe control order in force under the Control of Prices Act. After trialhe was convicted of the offence with which he was charged and sentencedto pay a fine of Rs. 1,500 and to 1 month’s rigorous imprisonment and,in default of the payment of the fine, to a further 6 weeks’ rigorousimprisonment. The accused has appealed from the conviction andsentence.
476
Jalaldeen v. Jayawardane
Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution-has failed to prove that the tin of condensed milk sold by the accusedcontained 14 ozs of condensed milk of the variety known as Milk Maidcondensed milk. The evidence led for the prosecution has establishedthat the tin sold contains embossed on its metal surface the figure of amilk maid and that such figure and the label appearing on the tin indicatethat the tin of milk contains the Trade Mark of a milk maid. The evidenceof the witness Mutukaruppan Raruiah is that when he asked from theaccused for a tin of milk he vras given the tin which has been producedin this case. That evidence was relied on by the prosecution to establishthat the accused acknowledged that the tin contained condensed milk.But there is no evidence, apart from the label on the tin which theprosecution submitted as evidence of the contents of the tin, that thetin contained 14 ozs. of condensed milk. I agree -with the submissionof counsel for the appellant and it is also conceded by Crown Counselappearing for the Attorney-General that the statements on the labelconstitute hearsay evidence which cannot be relied on to prove thequantity of condensed milk in the tin. It was submitted by Crown Counselthat the controlled article should not be determined by reference to theweight of the contents of the tin. But I note from a perusal of the pricecontrol order relevant to this case that the controlled article is a tin of14 ozs of condensed milk of the kind known as Milk Maid condensed milk.I am of the view that in this case it was incumbent on the prosecution toprove that the quantity of Milk Maid condensed milk sold by the accusedwas 14 ozs. As the label does not constitute evidence to prove thecontents of the tin, I hold that there is no evidence to prove that a tin of14 ozs. of Milk Maid condensed milk was sold by the accused. I thereforeset aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the accused.
Appeal allowed.