1934 Present: Akbar J.

RUBEN v. SHEENGHYE.

120-P. C. Kandy, 43,308.

    Dentists, Registration of-Dental operation or service-Meaning of expression- Fitting of artificial teeth-Ordinance No. 3 of 1915, s. 18 (1).

The expression "dental service" in section 18 (1) of the Dentists Registration Ordinance would include the act of making artificial teeth to fit the gap in the teeth of the person to whom the service is done and of fixing it into position.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Kandy.

Athulathmudali, for accused, appellant. March 16, 1934. AKBAR J.-

The accused was convicted under section 18 (1) (c) of the Registration of Dentists Ordinance, No. 3 of 1915, because he had performed for gain a dental operation or service on November 24 last, in that he had fitted on an artificial tooth to one Punchiappu without being registered as a qualified dentist under that Ordinance. He has been fined Rs. 50. The appeal is from this conviction and fine.

Under the sub-section the prosecution must prove three elements, namely: (1) that the accused was not a registered dentist under the Ordinance, (2) that he performed a service which must amount to a

dental service or in other words, dental advice or operation or service, (3) that the accused performed this act for gain. Now Mr. Athulathmudali has quoted a case in the English Courts, of 1934, under the Dentists Act which is of some importance in this case-the case of Herman & Co. v. Duckworth.1[1 Volume 90, Law Times, page 546.] The words in the English Act are " dental operation, dental attendance or advice". Wills J. stated as follows:-"I say with some reluctance because, probably, there is no part of a dentist's work which requires more care and very often more skill than the preparation and manufacture of false teeth, and it might very well have been that the words would have covered such a case as this. But I do not think that it is possible to say that making the teeth can come under ' dental attendance or advice'. Therefore we are really driven to the question whether the words ' dental operation' are sufficiently large to include such work as this. It seems to me that a dental operation-an operation in respect of the teeth-really means an operation in a surgical sense, something that is to be done, not upon the false teeth, but upon the living person, and that what really is charged for here is that which was not done upon the person, but was done upon the incomplete set of false teeth, in order to make them fit to the person; and I do not think that ' dental operation' can reasonably be construed to cover such a state of things as that". It will be seen from this extract of the judgment that the words " dental operation " meant something not to be done upon the false teeth but upon the living person. Unfortunately the words " dental service" do not occur in the English Act. Adopting the criterion suggested by Wills J., one can perfectly explain the meaning of the words " dental service" if we consider the words as meaning some service which will include the skill of the accused in making artificial teeth to fit the gap in the teeth of the person to whom the service is done, and also in actually fixing it into position in the gap. If such additional facts are proved beyond the mere selling of the artificial tooth, the words " dental service " will cover such a case.

In my opinion after hearing the evidence which was read out to me Very carefully by Mr. Athulathmudali, I think the conviction is wrong for the following reasons:-The three prosecution witnesses Punchiappu, Marthelis, and Illukkumbure had a very great interest in the prosecution. Illukkumbure, who gave information to the Inspector, is a practising dentist and he set the law in .motion against the accused. Competition affected his practice considerably and the way he set about getting the Inspector to prosecute was as