026-NLR-NLR-V-73-N.-PIYASENA-Appellant-and-N.-B.-A.-GUNAWARDENA-Public-Health-Inspector-Re.pdf
’fEjJMEKOCE'}', j.—Ptyasena v. GunawarJend
li?
1970Present: Tennekoon, J.
N.PIYASENA, Appellant, and N. B. A. GUNAWARDENA (PublicHealth Inspector), Respondent
S. C. 28/69—M. C. Gampaha, 25959/A
Control oj Prices Act—Offence in contravention oj it—Sentence—Applicability ofs. 325 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Where the commission of an offence in contravention of the Control of PricesAct anrl the conviction of the accused occurred during tho timo when theoperation of Section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code was suspended inrespect of such an offence by virtue of an Emergency Regulation, the AppellateCourt has no power to deal with the accused under that Section even if theappeal of tho accused is heard after tho Emergency has lapsed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Gampaha.
E. Jt. S. It. Coomaraswamy, with S. C. B. IValgatnpaya and P. II.Kurukulasooriyn, for the accused-appellant.
Twctnka Wickremasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney General.
Cur. ado. vull.
April 7, 1970. Tennekoon, J.—
Tho accused was convicted of selling two Regulet laxative tablets fora sum of 15 cents which is three cents above control1 price, an offencepunishable under section 8 (1) of the Control of Prices Act; and also ofhaving failed to give the buyer a receipt- in respect of tho sale, in whichthe required particulars were stated, an offence punishable under sectionS (G) of the same Act.
The evidence was that of a decoy ; the Price Control Inspector who hadarranged the raid was so quickly upon the scene after the accused hadeffected tho sale, that there was no timo, even if the accused was sodisposed, to write out a bill or receipt. I do not think that in. thesecircumstances the conviction on the 2nd count can stand. Accordinglythat conviction and the sentence of Rs. 25 line, in default 2 weeksrigorous imprisonment are set aside.
116
Jayamanne v. Stvasubramaniarrt
In regard to the conviction .on the 1st count Air. Coomarnswamy hasurged that having regard to the absence of any previous convictions, theage of the accused and the fact that he was a salesman in a somewhatout of the way village, the accused should be dealt with under section325 of the Criminal Procedure Code, since the Kmergency Regulationwhich suspended the operation of f hat section is no longer in force.
It would appear that under an Emergency Regulation made on 27thNovember, 1967 (Vide Government Gazette Extra Ordinary No. 13.77G/S),section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made inapplicable in thecase of any person who is charged before a Magistrate with an oficnccunder the Control of Prices Act. Similar regulations were made withrenewal of the Emergency from month to month until the Emergencylapsed on the 17th of January 1969. The offence in tho present case wascommitted on 16th June, 1968, and the whole of tho proceedings in theMagistrate’s Court, i.e., from the filing of plaint on the 25th of June, 196S,to conviction and sentence on the 25th of November, -196S, were hadwhile section 325 was not available to the Magistrate. I do not thinkthat the Appellate Court can in the matter of punishment exerciseany larger powers than were enjoyed by the Magistrate at the tirao hoconvicted and sentenced the accused. There is no error on the pa,rt ofthe Magistrate for this court to correct, v
The conviction and the sentence on the 1st count viz. Rs. 100 or 4weeks rigorous imprisonment in default, and the further sentence of 4weeks rigorous imprisonment are affirmed; as indicated earlier thoconviction and sentence of the 2nd count are set aside.
Conviction on 1st count affirmed.
Conviction on 2nd count set aside.