( 352 )
Sub-Inspec-tor of Police,Moratuwa v.Naina Mo *homed
judgment simply that the false balance was ** found ” in the boutiqueof the appellant. But there is no evidence that it was “ found Mwithin the meaning of the Ordinance. That word “ found ” was inthe original section 7 in the same context as it is to be found in thesection as it stands to-day. This Court held that the word impliesthat the finding must be by an authorized person. Who areauthorized persons are indicated in section 7 of the principalOrdinance.1 See The Anonymous Case reported in 2 SupremeCourt Circular 180, Herft v. Iradu? and Altendorf v. Kaduruvel.*No such person found the false balance in question. The im-portance of inserting that the finding should be by such a person isapparent when it is considered that the testing and proof of a falseweight, measure, or balance requires some technical knowledge ofstandards.
The conviction must be set aside as the charge, and the evidence,disclose no offence under the Ordinance.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Set azide.
a 5S.C. C. 201.
1 Ordinance No. 8 of 1876.
* (1879) 2 S. C. C. 186. .