116-NLR-NLR-V-18-PACKEER-ALLY-v.-BATCHA.pdf
( 452, )
IMS.
Present: Ennis J.
PAOKEEB ALLY tr. BATCH A.631—P. C. Matale 4,582
Cacao Thefts Pretention Ordinance, No. 8 of 2904—Person licensed to deal inttfbber carrying on business by his servants. .
A person licensed to deal in cacao under the Cacao Theft* *Prevention Ordinance (No. 8 of 1001) can carry on bis trade in theway usual among traders, e.gM through servants; he is not boundpersonally to negotiate each purchase.
♦
ppHE facts are set out in the judgment.
Dricberg, for appellant.
Garvin, Solicitor-General (with him Wadsworth), for respondent.
Cut. adv. vutt.
November 8, 1015. Ennis J.—
This is an appeal from a conviction under section 4 of the CacaoThefts Prevention Ordinance, No. *8 of 1904.
The accused is the servant of one Victoria, who holds a licenseto deal in cacao at 106, King street, Kandy. On July 9 henegotiated a purchase of cacao for his master, Victoria, from thesuperintendent of Alloowihare estate, Matale. The superintendentof Alloowihare estate holds a license to deal in cacao at the Alloo-wihare factory. Bs. 50 in advance was paid on July 9, and thereceipt runs.: “ Received from Mr. J. L. Victoria, Matale …. .”The balance was paid on July 12, and a similar receipt given.
The charge against the accused was that he purchased cacaowithout a license, in contravention of section 4 of (he Ordinance.
Section 4 makes it unlawful for any person to purchase cacaounless he has been licensed to deal in cacao. Section 5 providesthat the license is to specify the premises at which the licensee isauthorized to deal in cacao, and sub-section (5) of section 5 providesfor a special license to purchase cacao at places other than the
( 468 )
£
Jinoensed premises. Section 9 provides, inter alia*, that it shall beunlawful'for any licensed dealeij to purchase or take delivery of any Xasdy.
cacao at any place other ‘than licensed premises, unless specially „ .
licensed under seotion 6 (6).,
Briefly, section 4 makes it an offence th purchase cacao without a.license “ to deal ” in it, and section 9 makes it unlawful to purchaseit except at licensed premises.•
It is to be observed that seotion 9 does not say " his licensedpremises. " So, apparently, a licensed dealer can lawfully purchaseand take delivery at any licensed premises. In the present oase theAloowihare estate was such a place. The point for determinationon the present charge is whether car not the accused is a purchaserwithin the meaning of seotion 4.
. It was urged by the Solicitor-General that the only privilege givenby the license was to purchase cacao, and that the Ordinancethroughout sought to prevent thefts of Cacao by prohibiting thepurchase except under lioense. It is true that the sole privilegegiven by the license is 'the right to purchase cacao, hut the mainpreventive measure of the Ordinance lies in the condition thatpurchases are to be made in certain places only, and, in the provisionsof the- Ordinance, to compel purchasers to keep books. These showthat the Ordinance seeks to prevent theft by measures which wouldmake transactions in cacao traceable, rather than, as contended bythe Solicitor-General, by insisting that every licensed purchaser isto conduct his own purchases. If the contention for the prosecutionwere right, why does the Ordinance not make the lioense a lioense“ to purchase " ? Instead of that, it expressly says that no one shallpurchase eacao without a lioense “ to deed ” in cacao. A dealer isope who carries on a trade. The variation in the terms used in theOrdinance gives support to the contention advanced for the appellantthat a lioense holder can carry on his trade in the way usual amongtraders, e.g., through servants, and that he is not bound personallyto negotiate each purchase. The special provision of the Ordinancethat the names of partners are. to be separately mentioned in thelicense seems to me to indicate .that it was intended by the Ordinancethat the real purchasers should be known, and, in my opinion, thepreventive policy of the Ordinance does not require a constructionwhich would give the words “ to deal ” a restricted meaning. Byproviding that delivery can be taken at licensed premises only, theOrdinance safeguards the possibility of transactions through aservant being untraeeable.
; The learned Magistrate is mistaken in holding that the accusedwas a partner of Victoria; the evidence shows that he was a servantoifly. the present case he disclosed his principal when conductingthe purchase.
I allow the appeal.'
Appeal allowed.