045-NLR-NLR-V-45-SILVA-et-al.-Appellant-and-MUTHAI-P.-S.-Respondent.pdf
14:2
MOSELEY S.P.J.—Silva and Muthai, P. S.
1944Present: Moseley S.P.J.SILVA, et al., Appellant, and MUTHAI, P. S., Respondent.
664—M. C. Negombo, 38,197.
Defence(PurchaseofFoodstuffs)Regulations • 6(c)—Transportingcountry
rice—Order of confiscation.
Where a Magistrate made order confiscating a cart and a bull, whichhad been used for transporting country rice without a permit in contra-ventionof Defence(Purchase of Foodstuffs Regulations) Regulation
6 (c).
Held, that the order confiscating the bull was illegal.
PPEAL from a conviction of the Magistrate of Negombo.
H. W. Jayewardene, for accused, appellants.
Walter Jayawardene, C.G., for respondent.
January 5, 1944. Moseley S.P.J.—
This is an appeal against an order by the Magistrate. Negombo, forconfjseation of a cart and bull belonging to the appellant. The saidcart and bull were used by another party who was convicted on his ownconfession for transporting country rice from one district- to another with-out a permit. Regulation 6 (c) of the Defence (Purchase of Foodstuffs)Regulations, 1942, provides that in such a case the vehicle or vessel inwhich certain produce has been transported may, after notice to theowner of the vehicle or vessel, be confiscated provided that no suchorder shall be made if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Courtthat the contravention of the Regulations was committed without hisknowledge or consent.
In this case the appellant appeared to show cause and swore, that hehad lent the cart and bull to. the accused in the ease on a promise thatthey would be returned in the evening. They were not so returned andon the following morning the appellant was forced to send his childrento school by rickshaw instead of in the cart which was the usual procedure.The appellant admitted he had not asked the accused where he wastaking them, when he borrowed them. The learned Magistrate was notsatisfied with this explanation and refused to believe that he would havelent hit cart and bull to the accused without inquiring for what purposethey were being borrowed. He held that the appellant’s inactivity,when the accused failed to return the cart and bull as promised, indicatedthat he was aware for what purpose the cart was being used. He,therefore, ordered confiscation of both cart and bull.
.MOSELEY S.P.J.—The Attorney-General v. Pannikam
143
I am unable to say that the learned Magistrate erred in his failure to besatisfied with the ignorance of the appellant in this matter, but I amequally unable to hold that a bull in the circumstances of this casecan bf regarded as a vehicle or vessel. The order for confiscation inso far as it affects the cart is affirmed and that part of the order affectingthe bull is set aside. Subject to the amendment of the order to thateffect the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed subject to amendment of order.
Varied.