Amerasekera V. Lebbe

[Full Bench, ]

1914 Present: Wood Renton A. C. J., Pereira J., and De Sampayo A. J.

AMERASEKERA v. LEBBE.

602-P. C. Panadure, 46, 403.

Excise Ordinance (No. 8 of 1912), ss. 16 and 55-Medical practitioner- Is vedarala a medical practitioner -Possession or sale of " lagium "-Ganja.

Per Wood Renton A. C. J. and Pereira J. (dissentiente De Sampayo A. J. )-A vedarala is not a medical practitioner within the meaning of that term as used in section 65 of the Excise Ordinance (No. 8 of 1912).

The possession or sale of lagium-an article containing ganja- by a vedarala is not protected under section 55 of the Ordinance.

Per Full Court. -Notification No. 26 published in the Gazette of February 18, 1914, does not take away the privilege given to medical practitioners under section 55.

THIS was an appeal against an acquittal. The facts are set out in the judgment of Wood Renton A. C. J.

van Langenberg, K. C., S. -G. (with him Mahadeva, C. C ), for the appellant. -The notification No. 26 published in the Gazette of February 13, 1914, prohibits absolutely the possession of any article containing ganja.

The notification refers to all persons. Medical practitioners are not excluded.

[Wood Renton A. C. J. -The notification is made under section 16 (3) of the Excise Ordinance, and not under section 55. ] It is not necessary to quote the section at all in the notification. The latter part of section 55 refers to all notifications under the Ordinance.

The larger prohibition involved in notification No. 26 must include the less.

When the notification says that no article containing ganja may be possessed or sold, it includes medicated articles as well.

[Wood Renton A. C. J. -Section 55 refers to the prohibition of medicated articles under certain conditions, and not absolutely. ] There is nothing to prevent the Government putting an almost impossible condition and thus making it an absolute prohibition.

A vedarala is not a medical practitioner. The term " medical practitioner " is not denned in the Ordinance. If vedaralas are to be classed among medical practitioners, then apothecaries, &c, who have been refused registration, will claim to be medical practitioners for the purposes of this Ordinance. The term " medical

practitioner " is used in the section along with chemists, druggists, apothecaries, &c, and should be given a meaning to suit the context. We do not hear of chemists and druggists among those practising or manufacturing native medicine.

Counsel referred to Jams v. Usubu Lebbe. 1

A. St. V. Jayewardene (with him Talaivasingham), for the respondent. -[Their Lordships wished to hear counsel for the respondents on the question whether a vedarala is a medical practitioner. ] In Ordinance No. 4 of 1878, section 18, the term " medical practitioner " is used, and the term was interpreted in Jansz v. Usubu Lebbe 1 to include a vedarala. Where the Courts have given an interpretation to a word, that meaning must be given to that word in a subsequent enactment. Maxwell 46, 433.

The term " medical practitioner " should not be taken to mean a " registered medical practitioner. " A vedarala is defined in the Opium Ordinance as a person who practises medicine according to native methods.

Counsel cited Encyclopedia of the Laws of England, vol. IX., p. 176; Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. XX., para. 846; 406- P. C. Batticaloa, 36, 274. 2

Cur. adv. vult.

August 5, 1914. Wood Renton A. C. J. -

This is an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the acquittal in the Police Court of Panadure of the accused, the respondent, on charges of having been in possession of, and of having sold, lagium in contravention of section 16 (8) of the Excise Ordinance, 1912 (No. 8 of 1912), and Excise Notification No. 26, published in the Gazette of February 13, 1914. The appeal came before me originally sitting alone. But in view of the difficulty and importance of the questions raised by it, I thought it r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document