KEUNEMAN J.—Per era and Alwis.
1944Present: Keuneman J.
PEREBA Appellant, and ALWIS, Respondent.
21—:M. C. Kegalla, 3,806.
Piice Control Inspector—Claim to act as authorised officer—Defence* (Control ofPrices)(Supplementary Provisions) Regulations.
A Price Control Inspector, who claims to act as an authorised officerunder the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, must be appointedin writing by the Controller and such appointment must be proved.
PPEAL from an order of acquittal entered by the Magistrate oiKegalla.
Walter Jayawardene, G-.C., for the Attorney-General, appellant.
H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him A. Jayasuriya and S. Saravanamuttu),for accused, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 25, 1944. Keuneman J.-—
The accused was charged under section 183 of the Penal Code withobstructing Perera, a Price Control Inspector, in the discharge of hisduty and preventing him from searching the premises of the WelcomeStores. The matter depended on whether the Inspector was "anauthorised officer ” under the Defence (Control of Prices) (SupplementaryProvisions) Regulations.
In the Schedule this phrase includes any other officer or person ap-pointed by the Controller by notification to be an authorised officerfor the purposes of the Regulation. Under the Control of Prices Regula-• tions in the Gazette of January 7, 1943, “ authorised officers ” included" All persons appointed in writing by the Controller and holding officefor the time being as Price Control Inspectors
It has been established that Perera was a Price Control Inspector,but the Magistrate held that it was not proved that he was an authorisedofficer, because the letter of appointment PI was not proved. Noevidence was led to prove the signatures attached to PI.
Two sections of the Evidence Ordinance were cited to me in appeal.The first was section 91 exception 1, but this section does not help in this' case, because while it has been shown that Perera has acted as aPrice Control Inspector it has not been shown that he has acted as “ anauthorised officer ”. Further I am doubtful whether this section isreally applicable to the facts of this case.
The next section was section 57 (7), under which it was argued thatthe Magistrate should have taken judicial notice of the “ signatures ”.But this section is applicable if the fact of the appointment to the officehas been notified in the Government Gazette. No such Government Gazettewas produced to the Magistrate, and even if it had been produced, underthe section the Magistrate had the right to call for further proof.
HOWAED C.J.—Yoosoof and Bassan.
Crown Counsel claimed the right to produce this Government Gazettein appeal. But I do not think I should permit that. The questionI have to deeide is whether the Magistrate was wrong, and in all thecircumstances I am unable to say that he was wrong in acquittingthe accused.
The appeal is dismissed.
PERERA Appellant, and ALWIS, Respondent