017-NLR-NLR-V-46-PABILIS-SINGHO-appellant-and-GNANAPRAGASAM-Respondent.pdf
68
SOERTSZ .T.—Pabili* SinghQ and Gnatiopragasam.
: Present: Soertsz S.P.J.
PABILIS SINGHO, appellant, and GX ANAPRAGASAM,Respondent.
986—M. M. C. Colombo, 48,044.
Police Ordinance (Cap. 43), section 64 If) —Exposing clothes for sale onpavement—Meaning of word " passengers "—Obstruction to pedestrians.Where the accused was charged under section 64 U) of the. PoliceOrdinance with having exposed for sale a tray containing clothes on thepavement so as to obstruct pedestrians.
Held, that the accused had committed. no offence under the section.
The word " passengers " in the section does not mean '* pedestrians ".
A PPl’AL from a conviction by the Municipal Magistrate. Colombo.
A. H. C. de Silva, for accused, appellant.
M. P, Spencer, C.C., for Attorney-General.December 21, 1944. Soertsz J.—
Car. adv. vult.
It is difficult to imagine how it came about that, in this case there is.called in question a state of things that generations of citizens have•endured, if not with pleasure, at least with Stoicism.
The appellant was charged under section 64 (f) of the Police Ordinance(Cap. 43) with having “ exposed for sale a tray containing clothes on thepavement so as to obstruct pedestrians ”.
The Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine ofRs. 15.
The appellant appeals on a point of law, namely, that on the evidencejio offence under the section adduced in the charge, has- been established.
Section 64 (/) says that it is an offence for any person to expose “ anyarticle or thing, on the roads or streets, and which may obstruct pas-sengers or frighten horses ”. Overlooking the grammatical solecism thatresults from the redundant ‘ and ’, one cannot overlook the requirementdihat the article or thing exposed should be such as would obstructpassengers or frighten horses. Those are the only species of the animalkingdom contemplated by ttyis section. In the present case horses arenot concerned, only passengers—and the question is who are passengers.The charge seeks to equate pedestrians to passengers. In other words■the two words are regarded as synonymous. The evidence is on thesame footing. The Police Constable says—“ This stall caused obstruc-tion to pedestrians ”. I do not think that there is any justificationfor the view that ‘passengers ’ in this section means ' pedestriansEtymologically, there is no justification for the Oxford Dictionary savs(that, although originally the word passenger meant any passer by oj-
DE KRETSER J.—Fan Byre and the Public Trustee.
59
passer through, in modern usage it means one who travels in some-vessel or vehicle. The phrase * frighten horse ’ in this sub-sectionalso indicates that that is the meaning given to the class ' passengersin this sub-section. Not only that an examination of the whole ofsection 64 supports this view, for this sectiou speaks of passengers, passersby, and the public and thereby indicates that these words are used notindiscriminately but with particularity.
would set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant.
Set aside..