058-NLR-NLR-V-46-KIRI-BANDA-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-GAMPOLA-Respondent.pdf
WUEYBWABDENE J.—Kiri Banda and Inspector of Police, Oampola. 167
19*8Present: Wljeyewardene J.KIRI BANDA, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE,GAMPOL.A, Respondent.
1,109—AT. C. Oampola, 8,606.
Pood control—Unlawful possession of ration books by authorised distributor—
Possession bona fide—Accused discharged with a warning—Regulation
11 (8) of head E of Part 3 of Pood Control Regulations.
Under Regulation 11(8) of head E, Part 3, of the Pood Control
RegnlationB no authorised distributor shall keep in his possession theration book of an; person other than himself or a member of his house-hold.
The accused, an authorised distributor of controlled commodities,was directed b; a headman who was acting on the authority of theDeputy Food Controller to instruct his customers to bring their ration-books to bis boutique for inspection by the headman.
The accused, instead of telling the customers that they should waitfor the arrival of the headman, had permitted thirty-eight book holdersto leave their ration books at his boutique for examination by the head-man in their absence.
Held, that the accused, although he acted in contravention of theaforementioned Food Control Regulation, did so in good faith and shouldbe discharged with a warning under the provisions of section 325 of theCriminal Procedure Code.
^^PPEAIi from a conviction by the Magistrate of Gampola.
E. Chitty for the accused, appellant.
M.P. Spencer, C.C., for the Crown, respondent.
March 21, 1945. Wijeyewardene J.—
The accused is an authorised distributor of controlled commodities.He was convicted on a charge of having kept in his possession thirty-eightration books belonging to persons other than himself and members of hishousehold, and thus acted in contravention of the Food Control Regula-tion 11 (8) of head E, Part 3, Food Control Regulations, 1938, as, amendedby Regulations published in the Government Gazette ExtraordinaryNo. 8,996 of August 27, 1942, and made under the Food Control Ordinance.
The Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 500.
Police Sergeant Guneratne stated that he seized the thirty-eight booksat the boutique of the accused on August 12, 1944, shortly after 4 p.m.The Vidane Aratchie of the village, who was called as a witness for theprosecution, stated that he received an order from the Divisional RevenueOfficer to make a list of “all householders drawing rations from twodealers ”. Those instructions are contained in the circular D2 of August10, and require the headman to make the list before August 19. Theheadman said that on receiving those instructions he told the accusedthat he “ wanted to see the books ” of his customers. The headman
68 WLTEYEWAKDENE J.—Kiri Banda and Inspector of Police, Gampola.
expected to examine these books at accused's boutique. According toD 1 of November 29, 1943, which is a list of instructions issued to author-ised dealers, the accused was required “ to observe any instructionsgiven by the Deputy Food Controller or by any of his duly authorisedpersons If he failed to do so, D1 proceeded to say that “ his namewould be struck off from the list of authorised distributors and that hewould be prosecuted”. Crown Counsel conceded that the headmanwould be an authorised person within the meaning of Dl. The accused,therefore, had no alternative but to obey the directions given by theheadman.
Mudalihamy, another witness called by the prosecution, stated that hewas a holder of one of the ration books seized by the Police. He kept thebooks usually at his place. He took his books to the accused’s boutiqueat about 3 p.m. on August 12, and left them there as accused asked him tobring the hooks for the examination of the Aratchie. The accused him-self gave evidence and stated that the Aratchie told him on August 12,that he wanted to see the ration books of his consumers and he accordinglyinformed the ration book holders. It appears that thirty-eight out ofabout seventy ration boolTholders served by him came and left the booksin the boutique and that ^those were the books seized by the Police.
No doubt, the accused is technically guilty of the offence with which heis charged. The Aratchie did not ask him to take the books from theration book holders and keep them-in the boutique for inspection. TheAratchie wanted to see the books at the boutique. But I have no doubton the evidence as to the good faith of the accused. He asked the bookholders to bring their books that evening. Some of them came about3 p.m. and a number of these preferred to leave their books at the boutiquefor examination by the Aratchie rather than to wait there for theAratchie’s arrival. Of course if the accused was a very careful man, hecould have told the customers that his instructions from the Aratchie werefor them to come to the boutique and have their books ready for in-spection and that lie was not prepared to keep their books at- the boutiquefor inspection by the Aratchie.
The accused has no previous convictions. I think this is eminentlya case where I should deal with the accused under the provisions of section325 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I set aside the conviction and directthe Magistrate to discharge the accused with a warning without proceedingto conviction.
Conviction set aside.
accused discharged under section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code.