048-NLR-NLR-V-69-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Appellant-and-M.-S.-M.-SANOON-Respondent.pdf
220
Attorney-General v. Sanoon
1966 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J., and G. P. A. Silva, J.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and M. S. M. SANOON,
Respondent
S. C. 457165—M. G. Panadura, 86868
Control of Prices Act, No. 29 of 1950—Prosecution under s. 4, read with s. 3 (2)—Validity—Control of Prices Act (Cap. 173), ss. 1, 4—Revised Edition of theLegislative Enactments Act (Cap. 1)—Scope of its authenticity—Sections3 (1) (a), 12 (3)—Incapacity of Commissioner to repeal any pre-existing statute.
A prosecution for an offence falling under a statute which was passed priorto the date when the Revised Edition of the Legislative Enactments came intoforce in December 1961 is not invalid if such offence is punishable also undera corresponding statute included in the Revised Edition. Accordingly, aprosecution reciting an offence in contravention of Control of Prices Act No. 29of 1950 is not invalid if the Act is reproduced in the Revised Edition of theLegislative Enactments and offences similar to the offence in question are alsoreferred to therein in identical terms. In such a case, it cannot be contendedthat the prosecution is under a repealed statute.
H. N. Q. FERNANDO, C.J.—Attorney-General v. Sanoon
221
.A.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Panadurs.
B. T. Premaratne, Senior Crown Counsel, with O. P. S. Silixi, CrownCounsel, for the Appellant.
Ranganalhan, Q.C., with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for the Accused-Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 29, 1966. H. N. G. Fernando, C.J.—
The Respondent to this Appeal was charged in the Magistrate’s Courtwith sale of beef at a price above the maximum price fixed by the PriceControl Order published in Gazette No. 14,041 of 22nd May 1964. ThePrice Control Order as published contains a recital that it was beingmade “ by virtue of the powers vested by section 4 of the Control ofPrices Act 29 of 1950 read with section 3 (2) of that Act”.
The Control of Prices Act No. 29 of 1950 is reproduced in the revisededition of the Legislative Enactments as Cap. 173 of that edition andsection 1 of that Act as so reproduced provides that “ this Act may becited as the Control of Prices Act ”. By virtue of a proclamation madeunder section 12 of the Revised Edition of the Legislative EnactmentsAct {Cap. 1) the revised edition came into force in December 1961 andaccordingly in terms of subsection 3 of section 12 that revised editionis to “be deemed to be and be without any question whatsoever in allcourts of justice and for all purposes whatsoever the sole authenticedition of the Legislative Enactments of Ceylon therein printed ”.
The learned Magistrate has in a careful judgment reached the conclu-sion that by reason of the provisions of section 12 (3) no proceedingscan be had for any alleged contravention of an order which purports tohave been made, not under the Control of Prices Act reproduced asCap. 173 of the revised edition, but instead under “ the Control of PricesAct, 1950 ”. One reason for this conclusion is the opinion of the learnedMagistrate that the Control of Prices Act of 1950 became impliedlyrepealed when the revised edition came into force. This opinion is inour view erroneous. The powers conferred on the Commissioner appointedunder Cap. 1 do not include the power to repeal any pre-existingstatute. The only power which is in any way related to the conceptof repeal is that conferred in section 3 (1) (a) of Cap. 1, namely, “ toomit any legislative enactment which has been, repealed expressly or bynecessary implication, or which has expired, has become spent, or has had
2*—H 2012 (2/67)
222
H. N. G. FERNANDO, C.J.—Attorney-General v. Sanoon
its effect Far from exercising any such power in the case of thestatute providing for the Control of Prices, the Commissioner reproducedthat statute in the revised edition, thus negativing any idea of acontemplated repeal of the statute formerly in force.
After holding that the former statute was repealed, the Magistrate(very properly in view of that holding) proceeded to consider whetherthere are any provisions in the revised edition which would mitigate theeffect of the repeal and would serve to validate an erroneous reference inthe Price Control Order to the statute under which it purported to bemade. He could find no such provision and therefore reached hisultimate conclusion.
What has occurred in the case of this Order is that by error there hasbeen included in the recital the words or figures No. 29 of 1950. Hadthose words and figures not been included, the reference to the statutewould have been perfectly correct in view of section 1 of the Act asreproduced as Cap. 173.
A comparison of section 4 of the Control of Prices Act of 1950 withSection 4 of the Control of Prices Act as reproduced in Cap. 173 of therevised edition shows that the section had remained unaltered from thetime of its original enactment until the time of its reproduction in therevised edition.
Since in terms of section 12 (3) of Cap. 1 the revised edition is the soleauthentic edition, any person who is aware of any order referring to aControl of Prices Act must in law refer to the revised edition, and onlyto that edition, in order to ascertain the provision of law under which theOrder is made. Had the respondent in this case followed that coursehis attention must necessarily have been drawn to section 4 of Cap. 173which as already stated is identical with the section referred to in theOrder. It is only if some prejudice was caused by the erroneous referencein the Order that the respondent would have been entitled to ask for anyrelief.
We hold that the error in the recital did not invalidate the Order andthat the Order must in law be taken to have been duly made under thelaw as set out in Cap. 173 of the revised edition.
The learned' Magistrate has found on the facts that the respondentdid sell beef at a price in excess of the price fixed by the Order.
We set aside the acquittal and convict the accused of the offencecharged. He is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500.
G. P. A. Silva, J.—I agree.
Acquittal set aside.