041-NLR-NLR-V-56-W.-A.-SURABIEL-Appellant-and-K.D.-C.-EKANAYAKE-Inspector-of-Police-Resp.pdf
SWAN J.—Sttrabiel v. Ekanayake
167
1954Present : Swan J.W. A. SURABIEL, Appellant, and K. D. C. EKANAYAKE(Inspector of Police), Respondent
S. C. 906—M. C. Horana, 16,228
Excise Ordinance—Possession of unlawfully manufactured liquor—Proof.
A conviction for possession of unlawfully manufactured liquor cannot be basedon on inconclusive report of the Government Analyst.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Horauu.
P. B. Tamjioe, for the accused appellant.
M. Kanagasunderam, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. null.
November 2, 1954. Swan J.—
In this case the appellant was charged with possession of a largoquantity of unlawfully manufactured liquor. His defence was that it wasintroduced by the Police. After trial the learned Magistrate found himguilty and sentenced him to four months’ rigorous imprisonment.
At the appeal the only point pressed by learned counsel for the appellantwas that there was no proof that the stuff was unlawfully manufacturedliquor. It was at first contended by Mr. Tampoe that the GovernmentAnalyst’s report was not properly received in evidence. Latterly thepoint was confined to the inconclusive nature of the report.
The Government Analyst has said that the Stuff examined by himcontained 5'6% alcohol and did not fall into any one of the followingcategories :—
(a) Approved brands of imported liquors ;
(ft) Arrack ;
Gin ;
Toddy ;
Beers, wines, polpala decoctions and tea ciders manufactured under
licence issued by the Excise Commissioner.
He also reported that it was not distilled spirits but a fermentedliquor.
Mr. Tampoe said that there were tea ciders, fruit and coconut cidersand other decoctions that could be manufactured under licence, andthat such beverages could contain more than 4% alcohol. LearnedCrown Counsel maintained that no such lawfully manufactured stuff
168
SWAN .1.—Surabiel v. Ekanayake
could contain more than 4% alcohol; no licence is ever issued for themanufacture of any beverage containing more than 4% alcohol. Thismay be so, but it does not appear in or from the evidence. The AnalysthaB not been called and there is no apparent reason why he has excludedonly certain liquors and beverages. The prosecution has not provedthat the stuff found with the accused was unlawfully manufacturedliquor and the accused is therefore entitled to be acquitted. *
T set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Appeal allowed.