029-NLR-NLR-V-57-SIMON-Appellant-and-CHEIF-PREVENTIVE-OFFICER-EXCISE-FORCE-Resident.pdf
1955Present: Sansoni, J.
SIMON, Appellant, and CHIEF PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISEFORCE, Respondent
S. O. 408—M. C. Kegalle, 5,537
Excise Ordinance—Sections 12 and 16—Unlawful transport or possession of Govern-ment arrack—Proof of quality of arrack.
In a prosecution for unlawful transport or possession of Government p.rrackit is sufficient for the complainant to mako out a prima facio case that tho con-tents of tho bottles in question were Government arrack.
j/^lPPEAE from a judgment of tho Magistrate’s Court, Kegalle.
J.C. Thurairatnam, for tho accused appellant.
Jan Wikramanayahe, Crown Counsel, for the-Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vull.
August 24, 1955. Saxsoxi, J.—
The accused in this case was charged on two counts : (1) With havingtransported an excisable article, to wit, 16 drams of Government arrack,which is 8 drams in excess of the prescribed quantity, without a permitfrom the proper authorities in breach of S. 12 of the Excise Ordinance.(2) With having possessed an excisable article, to wit, 16 drams of Govern-ment arrack, which is S drams in excess of the prescribed quantity, withouta permit from the proper authorities in breach of S. 16 of the Ordinance.
The learned Magistrate convicted the accused on both counts and theonly point taken in appeal on behalf of the accused isthat it has nob beenproved by the prosecution that the article in question was Governmentarrack.•
It was proved that the accused transported and possessed two bottlesbearing labels which describe 1 the contents as Government arrack :it was also proved that the capsules on the bottles were intact at the timeof detection, and they were also intact when they were produced inCourt : it was also proved that the seals on the capsules were the properseals and they were intact. No suggestion was made to the prosecutionwitnesses, nor was any evidence led on behalf of the accused, to the effectthat the contents of the bottles had been tampered with at any timeafter the capsules had been placed in the bottles and duly sealed.
It would seem that the quest ion of the contents of the bottles was onlyraised after the case for tho prosecution had been closed.
Under these circumstances I think the prosecution had made out-a prima facie case that the contents of the two bottles were Government*arraCk. That seems to mo to be the only commonsense view of thematter. I think the learned Magistrate was entirely justified in findingthat no further proof of the character of the contents of the bottles wasnecessary. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.