103-NLR-NLR-V-22-POLICE-VIDANE-v.-KANTHAN.pdf
( 849 )
Present: Bertram C. J.
POLICE VTDANE v. EANTHAN.
599—P. 0. Ckavakaeheheri, 9,965.
Salt Ordinance, No. 6 Of 1890, a. 16—Salt found in a house—Occupier
guilty unless he gives satisfactory explanation.
0
The occupier of & house in which salt is found in excess of theamount allowed is guilty of an offence under section 10 of OrdinanceNo 6of 1890 if he is unable to account for the saxne satisfactorily.Actual and exclusive possession need not be proved nor presumed.
Keerala v. Appuhamy1 doubted.
j fJIHE facts appear from the judgment.
, ; J. Joseph, for the appellant
Brito Muttunayagam, C.C., for the Crown.
i
August 26, 1920. Bertram C.J.—
This is a case arising under the Salt Ordinance, No. 6 of 1890, andin particular under the provisions of section 16 of that Ordinance,which makes the occupier of any house in which shall be foundany salt which he is unable satisfactorily to account for guilty ofan offence. In this case the person charged is the actual house-holder. But it is pointed out that he was not the only occupantof the house. It is sought to pray in aid the decisions of this Courtin which it has been held that where the Court is ashed to drawa presumption from the possession of property against the personcharged it must be shown that the possession was actual andexclusive. SeihuJcavdu v. Kandiah 2 and Banda v. Haramanis,8 *Reference has also been made to a judgment of my own, Keeralav. Appuhamy,1 in Which I expressed the opinion that the doctrineof the necessity of exclusive possession ought not to be appliedto the case of husband and wife. I should like to say that, if theparticular point comes up again, I should like to reconsider myobservations, as I am under the impression that there are Englishauthorities to the contrary of what I said. This particular casemust be decided, not upon the basis o^that decision, nor upondecision given upon the words of other Ordinances, but upon theactual terms of this Ordinance. Here it is definitely.said that the
1 (1920) 7 C. TV. JR, 87.2 (1920) 7 C. W. R. 141.
8 (1919) 21 N. L. R. 14b
1920.
1920.
Bbbxram
O.J.
PoliceVidane v.Ranthan
occupier is guilty of the offence if he cannot account for the presenceof salt in the house. There is no question that the accused in thiscase was the occupier; indeed, he was the occupier par excellence,being himself the householder. It is quite possible that otheroccupants may have been liable as occupiers, but that is not thequestion at issue. It seems to me that on the words of this Ordinancethe principle referred to in the cases I have mentioned does notcome under consideration, and I therefore uphold the conviction.