Present: De Sampayo J.       1919

ABEYESEKERE v. MOHAMADO.

256-M. C. Colombo, 658.

Mutton   offal-Meat-Municipal  Councils Ordinance, s. 202-Butchers Ordinance.

" Meat " in the Batchers Ordinance includes offal.

Where an accused had the batcher's license to sell meat (mutton only, excluding offal), as well as another under the Batchers Ordi­nance, from the Chairman, Municipal Council, and he was charged with selling offal-

Held, he had the permission of the Chairman to sell offal.

THE  accused was charged with having sold or exposed for sale " mutton offal " in the Edinburgh market without the permission of the Chairman of the Municipal Council, in breach of section 202 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance, No. 6 of 1910. At this time the accused had two licenses: one from the Chairman for a certain stall at Edinburgh market authorizing him to sell "meat (mutton only, excluding offal)," and the other under the Butchers Ordinance, No. 9 of 1893. The latter authorized him to slaughter animals and to carry on the trade of a butcher at this stall. The Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that " meat " included " offal."

A. St. V. Jayawardene (with him Keuneman), for complainant, appellant.-The license from the Chairman specially excluded "offal," and it is distinguished from "meat." Offal is meat unfit for   human    consumption. The Butchers Ordinance  does not

distinguish " offal " from " meat."    But that license alone is not  sufficient. The Chairman's license restricted his powers, and he is Mohamado      charged under section 202 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance.

[De Sampayo J.-The accused ought to have been charged under by-law 14 of chapter XIII. of the Municipal Council's by-laws.] The Magistrate has not acquitted him on that ground. He says the by-laws are ultra vires ( Seresinghe v. Ibrahim Saibo 1). But the present by-laws are not,  as they are under the Ordinance of 1910.

Hayley, for accused, respondent.-The license given to the accused is not vague. The Chairman's license of December 20, 1918, contains some limitations. But his butcher's license gave him leave to carry on the trade of a butcher at Edinburgh market. It contained no limitations.    The word " butcher " is clearly denned.

There is no proof that offal is not eaten by human beings. Section 202 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance cannot have any application.

Cur adv. vult.

June 4, 1919.    De Sampayo J.-

 The complainant, who is a Municipal Inspector, appeals on a point of law from an order of the Municipal Magistrate acquitting the accused. The complainant charged the accused with having on February 24, 1919, sold or exposed for sale " mutton offal " in the Edinburgh market without the permission of the Chairman of the Municipal Council, in breach of section 202 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance, No. 6 of 1910. It appears that the accused at this time had a license issued to him by the Chairman for a certain stall in the Edinburgh market. It authorized him to sell " meat (mutton only, excluding offal)." If the case against the accused is that he sold offal in the stall in question in contravention of the terms of his license, the charge should properly have been under by-law 14 of chapter XIII. of the Municipal Council's by-laws, which penalizes the sale of " an article or thing other than what is specified in his license." It is said that the by-laws relating to this matter were not relied on by the prosecutor, because they are considered to be invalid in consequence of the judgment in Seresinghe v. Ibrahim Saibo.1 But that .case was decided under entirely different circumstances. Apart from this supposed attitude of the Municipal Council towards their own by-laws, the Municipal Magistrate himself says that in Amerasinghe v. Abdul Sheriff 2 it was held that the by-law under which the stall licenses are issued was ultra vires. That is a case decided by me, but