123-NLR-NLR-V-74-M.-HARIKRISHNAN-and-another-Appellants-and-H.-WEERASINGHE-O.-I.-C.-Central-V.pdf
520
H. N. G. KERXAtTDO, C.J.—HarihrUhnan v. Weerasinghe
1969PresentH. N. G. Fernando, C.J.
M. HAJRJKRISHNAN and another, Appellants, and H. WEERASINGHE(O. I. C., Central Vioe Squad, Fort), Respondent
S. C. S81-SS2j69—M. C. Colombo, 57346
Control of Pricoa—Sals of meal at a butcher's stall—Charge of contravention of pricecontrol order as a trader—Meaning of word “ trader "—Butchers Ordinance.
When, in the contort of a sale of meat at a butcher’s stall, a person is chargedwith having committed a breach of prico control order as a trader, the word“ trader ” must be given a meaning similar to the moaning of the samo wordin the Butchers Ordinance.
j^JPPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.S. C. Chandrahasan, for the accused-appellants.
Shibly Aziz, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
December 6,1969. H. N. G. Fernando, C. J.—
I see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the1st accused on the first count.
With regard to the second count the charge against these accusedwas that “ being traders ” they failed to exhibit a notico specifying themaximum price of mutton. There was no evidence however that eitherthe 1st or the 2nd accused was a trader. In regard to the 1st accusedthe evidence was that he was a salesman and in regard to tho 2nd accused .the evidonce was that he was the cashier. In the present contoxt of thesale of meat at a butcher’s stall, I think counsel for tho appellant quiterightly relied on tho references in the Butchers Ordinance to the tradeof a butcher and to the licensing system applicable to that trade. Whentherefore a person is charged with having committed a breach of a pricocontrol order as a trader, that word must properly bo given a meaningsimilar to the meaning of tho same word when it occurs in the ButchersOrdinance. I would therefore acquit both the accused on tho secondcount.
In regard to tho charge against the 2nd accused on the first count ofhaving sold mutton in excess of tho control price, the evidcnco for theprosecution was that the 1st accused took a Rs. 5 note from the purchaserfor one pound of meat and then handed the note to the 2nd accused
John Silva v. William dt Silva
521
asking the latter to take Rs. 3.75. The 2nd accused then took the noteand handed back Rs. 1.25 to the 1st accused who in turn gave that amountas change to the purchaser. Learned Crown Counsel very properlyconcedes that this evidence does not establish that the 2nd accusedpart icipated in the sale. Tho conviction and sentence of the 2nd accusedon the first count as well is therefore set aside.
Appeal of 1st accused partly allowed.Appeal of 2nd accused allowed.