062-NLR-NLR-V-09-LIVERA-v.-SANDANAM-CHETTY.pdf
( 314 )
1906.
September^.
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.LIVERA v. SANDANAM CHETTY.
P.C., Avisawella, 15,768.
Postage staimps^Sale without license—Isolated sale—Ordinance No. 3 of1890, s. 48—Ordinance No. 13 of 1899, s. 44—Ordinance No. 10of 1899, «. 3.
A person who sells postage stamps without a license is guilty ofan offence under section .43 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890.
In order to bring such a person within the provisions of thatsection, it is not' necessary to prove habitual selling or dealing instamps; it is sufficient to prove an isolated act of sale.
rj^HE facts and arguments sufficiently appear in the- judgment.
Bawa (with him A. Drieberg), for the accused, appellant.
Walter Pereira, K.C., S-O., for the Crown.
Cur. adv. vult.
26th September, 1906. Middleton J.—
In this case the accused had pleaded guilty of selling a postagestamp and a post card without a license.
( 315 )
It was objected that postage stamps and the stamp” on post cardswere not stamps denoting or purporting to denote any stamp duty,and therefpre did not come under section 43 ol Ordinance No. 3 of1890, and the Proclamation of 28th June, 1896, published in theGasatte of 10th July, 1896, No. 5,417, Part I., was relied on as in-dicating this.
It is not necessary for a Government stamp to bear the word!“ stamp duty ” on it before it can be said to denote or purport todenote stamp duty. The fact that it bears on it its face value issufficient to denote that the stamp is good for that amount of dutywhen purchased and affixed. This is clear also from section 3 ofOrdinance No. 10 of 1899.
I think also that the same section which is substituted for section44 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1892 has the effect of applying the pro-hibitions and penal terms of section 43 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890to the sale of postage stamps without a license.
The remarkable part of the application of section 44 of OrdinanceNo. 13 of 1892 to section 43 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1890 is that itwould appear that the Postmaster-General and all Postmasterswould require a license from the Commissioner of Stamps to sellpostage stamps.
As section 43 makes the sale of any stamp without license
punishable with fine, I feel unable to say that the offence contem-plated is, as argued by counsel for the appellant, habitual selling ordealing in stamps.
I think that an isolated sale comes within the terms of the section,as argued by the Solicitor-General.
It would appear that postage stamps are sold by Postmastersunder the provisions of section 42 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1892, andthat under section 44 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1892, before it wasamended by Ordinance No. 10 of 1899, any person was allowedto sell postage stamps under the authority of that Ordinance,but that proviso is omitted in the amending section 3 of OrdinanceNo. 10 of 1899.
I must therefore affirm, the conviction on the ground that theappellant has in fact pleaded guilty to a legal offence.
1906.
September 26.'
MtDDLKTON
J.