007-NLR-NLR-V-48-THIRUGNANAM-Appellant-and-WEERASINGHE-TEA-CONTROL-INSPECTOR-Respondent.pdf
N AG ALIN GAM AJ.—Thhugnanam v. We erasing he. Tea Control Inspector. 19 ■
1946Present: Nagaiingam A,J.
THIRUGNANAM, Appellant, and WEERASINGHE, TEA CONTROLINSPECTOR, Respondent.
392—M. C. Colombo, 11,792.
Defence <Control of Tea Sales) Regulations 1943, Regulation 6A—Possession ofpocketed tea—Meaning of verb “ to packet
Where the accused was convicted of having had in his possession orunder his control 42 two-pound boxes and 4 five-pound boxes of madetea other than tea packeted by the Tea Commissioner, in contraventionof Regulation 6a of the Defence (Control of Tea Sales) Regulations1943—
Held, that the circumstance that the tea had been put intowooden boxes did not remove it from the category of “ packeted tea ”within the meaning of Regulation 6a.
^^PPEAL against a conviction from the Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.
E. F. N. Gratiaen (with him G. E. Chitty), for the accused, appellant.
E. B. Wikramanayake, for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 6, 1946. Nagalingam A.J.—
The accused in this case has been convicted of having had in hispossession or under his control “ 42 two-pound boxes and four five-poundboxes of made tea other than tea packeted by the Tea Commissioner incontravention of Regulation 6a of the Defence (Control of Tea Sales)Regulations, 1943 ” and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. Thefacts which give rise to this prosecution are not in dispute. It wouldappear that the accused who is an authorised dealer within the meaningof the Regulations had been supplied by the Tea Commissioner withwhat has been described as broken mixed tea in lead-lined wooden chestscontaining 80 pounds of tea. The accused had packed this tea in woodenboxes in quantities of two pounds and five pounds and had them exposedfor sale in his shop. The boxes had lids which were nailed with two,four or six nails but loosely to facilitate ready inspection of the tea if oneso desired.
20 N A G ALIN GAM A.J.—Thirv.gnav.am v. Weerasinghe, Tea Control Inspector.
The prosecution contends that under the Regulation 6a an authoriseddealer cannot have in his possession any packeted tea other than teapacketed in lead foil by the Commissioner and that as the accused hadmade packages of tea in two-pound and five-pound boxes he had in hispossession packeted tea which had not been packeted by the Tea Com-missioner in lead foil and that the accused had thereby committed anoffence. It is in evidence that ihe Tea Commissioner has put on themarket three grades of tea one of which is called broken orange pekoewhich is supplied by him in packets of lead foil and two other gradeswhich are called broken mixed tea which are supplied in chests of80 pounds.
The first contention on behalf of the accused is that the boxes of twopounds and five pounds of tea cannot be said to be packeted tea as it issaid that tea packed in wooden boxes are not packeted but at best theyare boxed. To packet goods means to wrap or to make up articles intopackets or small packages. The main idea conveyed by the verb “ topacket ” is not so much the method employed or the manner adopted toproduce a parcel or package as the making up of the goods into smallparcels or packages. A packet of cigarettes, as one knows, is a srhalLquantity of cigarettes enclosed in a carton or card-board box. A packetof candles is again a small quantity of candles wrapped in paper or evenmerely tied up with a string without any wrapping. It is true thatarticles of everyday use which are packeted or made into small parcelsare not ordinarily packed in wooden boxes but it does not thereforenecessarily follow that when a small quantity of an article is put togetherinto a wooden box it ceases to be packeted. The term “packeted tea’rin the Regulation, I think, means no more than tea made up into asmall package whether put into wooden boxes or wrapped in paper orlead foil or made into a small package by any other means whatsoever.The prohibition is against an authorised dealer having in his possessionany tea made up into packets other than tea made into packets in leadfoil by the Commissioner. I am therefore of opinion that the circumstancethat the tea has been put into wooden boxes does not remove it from thecategory of “ packeted tea ” or tea made up into packets.
The second point urged was that the tea that was in the possession ofthe accused in the two-pound and five-pound boxes made up by him wasin fact tea that had been supplied by the Tea Commissioner in packetsof eightly pounds and therefore it was tea packeted by the Tea Com-missioner himself- But the answer to this is firstly that such a largequantity as eighty pounds cannot be deemed to be a packet and cannottherefore be said to have been packeted. The term “ packeted ” alsoinvolves a notion of a parcel essentially small in size. Obviously it willbe impossible to describe a motor car put into a wooden crate as a packet.The tea supplied by the Tea Commissioner in quantities of eighty poundscan be described as tea in chests but I do not think it would be correct tocall an eighty-pound chest a packet of tea or tea that has been packeted.Secondly, the tea supplied by the Commissioner in chests of eightypounds is not supplied in lead foil although the chests are lead-lined ormore properly zinc-lined. The tea, therefore, which the accused had
NAGALINGAM AJ.—Rajah v. Abeyegunewardene.
21
made up into two-pound and five-pound boxes was not tea that hadbeen packeted in lead foil by the Tea Commissioner.
A third point was also put forward, namely, that there would be noconfusion between the tea packeted by the Tea Commissioner and thetea packeted by the accused in these two-pound and five-pound boxesas it is said that the Regulations *?im at preventing packages of teabeing passed off as those issued by the Tea Commissioner. The objectof the Regulations is not so much to secure that there is no colourableimitation of the tea packeted by the Tea Com nr ssioner but to ensurethat tea that is not packeted by the Tea Commissioner does not leavethe shores of the Island. The accused admits that numbers of peoplefrom board ship buy tea from him as packed in these boxes. As statedearlier, the quality of this tea is different from that of the tea sold by theCommissioner in lead foiled packets which is the grade known as brokenorange pekoe and which is superior in quality to the tea that is notpacketed by the Commissioner. By the sale of tea in his wooden boxesthe accused actively assists in sending out of the country a lower gradeof tea which was never intended to reach consumers beyond the limitsof the Island.
The view I reach, therefore, is that the learned Magistrate was right. .in convicting the accused. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed..