017-NLR-NLR-V-47-PINTO-Appellant-and-PRICE-CONTROLLER-Respondent.pdf
40
HOWARD C.JPinto V. Price. Controller.
1646Present : Howard CJ.PINTO, Appellant, and PRICE CONTROLLER, Respondent.1,456—M. G. Negombo, 45,620.
Control of Prices {Pood) Ordinance—Sale of beef without bones—Control ofsale of beef in excess of 35 cents—Price Regulations Order.
Where the accused was charged with selling country beef for 50 cents,a price in excess of the controlled price, viz., 35 cents, and where thedefence was that beef without bones, which was sold by him, was notcontrolled—
Held, that the accused had offended against the regulation fixingthe price of controlled beef.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Negombo.
W. Jayewardene for the accused, appellant.
J. G. T. Weeraratne, O.C., for the Attorney-General.
February 13, 1946. Howard C.J.—
In this case the appellant appeals from a judgment of the Magistrate,Negombo, convicting him of having sold one pound of country beef forfifty cents, a price in excess of the controlled price for country beef inthe Urban Council area of Negombo, in breach of the maximum price forcountry beef set out in column 2 of the first schedule of the Control ofPrices (Food) Ordinance published in Government Gazette No. 9,271dated May 17, 1944. After conviction the Magistrate sentenced theappellant to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. It was proved inevidence at the trial that O. E. Perera, a Price Control Inspector, on theday in question went to the appellant’s Beef Stall at Galkande Junctionand asked for a pound of beef. The appellant cut some beef, weighedit with a one pound weight and gave it to Perera. There were no bonesin the beef. Perera asked the price, and the appellant asked him togive 50 cents for the beef. Perera gave a rupee note and received backtwo 25 cent notes. There was a price list in the appellant’s stall whichstated that the price of beef was cents 35 a pound. The appellant calledno evidence, but his Counsel relied on a point of law that the regulationson which the prosecution founded its case did not apply inasmuch aswhat was sold to the Price Control Inspector was country beef withoutbones and not country beef with bones. The same point has been takenbefore me on appeal.
Paragraphs (ii.) and (vi.) of the Order published in the Gazette ofMay 17, 1944, are worded as follows :—
“ I,, Controller of Prices (Food), do by this Order—
(ii.) fix the prices specified in columns 2 and 3 of the FirstSchedule hereto to be the maximum price per pound
HOWARD C.J. —Pinto a. Price Controller.
41
above which country beef of the description and gradespecified at the heads of those columns shall not be soldwithin the area specified in the corresponding entry incolumn 1 of that Schedule ;
(vi.) direct that when any beef (Australian or country) or anymutton is sold the weight of the bones sold therewithshall not exceed 25 per cent, of the total weight sold : ”
In the first Schedule there is to be found the heading—** Maximum Prices for Country Beef”
Column 1.
Column 2.
Column 3.
Country Beef,
Area.with not more than
25 per cent, bones.Maximum Priceper lb.
Rs. o.
Negombo Urban Council area .0 35
Country Beef,Dead Weight,Maximum Priceper lb.
Rs. o.032
Counsel for the appellant contends that the order does not control theprice of country beef without bones. In support of his argument he hascited the cases of UTamar v. Rambukwetta1, Weerasekere v. Svbramanidmzand Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandy v. Wasim3. In the last case citedthe accused was charged with selling two 4 oz. loaves of bread for 15 centswhich was in excess of the controlled price for a half pound loaf. It washeld that the accused had not offended against the Regulations as theamount of bread controlled was in respect of sixteen and eight ounceloaves. In Weerasekere v. Subramaniam the accused was charged withthe sale of 8 Sulphapyridine tablets at 50 cents a tablet, a price in excessof the maximum price, in breach of an order made under section 3 of theControl of Prices Ordinance. It was held that the accused had notoffended against the provisions of the order as the article controlledwas a bottle of tablets (not single tablets). In these two cases it wasmanifest that what was controlled was not the amounts with which theaccused were charged with selling in excess of the specified prices. I donot think that they are relevant so far as the present case is concerned.In Ummar v. RambulcweUa {supra} the accused was charged with sellingone and a half pound of mutton including J lb. of offal (viz., suet). Themaximum price fixed for mutton without bones was 75 cents per poundand the price charged by the trader for the quantity sold was Re. 1 ■ 13.It was held that the accused had not committed an offence. Suet waseither mutton or offal. If it was mutton, no offence was committed. Ifsuet wasoffal, the price of offal was not controlled. – Again I do not thinkthat this decisioh depending as it did on the question as to whether theprice of mutton plus suet was controlled affects the present case. Thedecision in the present case depends on whether the order controls theprice of beef without bones. Paragraph (ii.) fixes the prices specified, &c.
1 44 N. L. R. 161.6—H 16792 (8/68)
44 N. L. R. 54$.
3 46 N. L. R. 93.
42 WIJEYEWARDENE J.—Thomas v. Inspector oj Police, K.Ottawa.
… o'f the description and grade specified, …. &c. Para-
graph (vi.) directs that the weight of the bones shall not exceed 25 percent, of the total weight. In my opinion on a strict interpretation ofthe order beef without bones is controlled, but a sale is allowed at thecontrolled price of beef which contains 25 per cent, by weight of bones.
Ifor the reasons I have given I have come to the conclusion that theMagistrate came to the right decision and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.