Back
MOHAMED v. NUWARA ELIYA POLICE
NLR44V260
1943 Present:
Wijeyewardene J.
MOHAMED, Appellant, and NUWARA ELIYA POLICE, Respondent.
188-189-M. C. Nuwara Eliya, 6,102.
Control of Prices Regulation
6-Charge of refusal to sell beef-reserved for regular customers-Valid
defence-Control of Prices Ordinance, s. 4 (3).
Where the first accused who was a salesman and the second accused, the manager
of a firm which ran a meat stall, were charged with refusing to sell beef in
contravention of the Control of Prices regulation 6 and where the defence of the
accused was that the beef found in the stall was required to be supplied to
registered customers,-
Held, that the plea was a valid defence to the charge.
Held, further, that the second accused was not liable in the absence of proof
that the employer of the first accused was out of the Island.
APPEAL
from a conviction of the Magistrate of
Nuwara Eliya.
E. F. N. Gratiaen for accused, appellant.
G. E. Chitty, C.C., for Crown, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
April 16, 1943. WIJEYEWARDENE
J.-
The first accused is .a salesman and the second accused, the Manager, of the
firm of Abram Saibo & Co., who run a meat stall at Nuwara Eliya. On October 15,
1952, one Mr. M. P. Gunawardene, a District Inspector of the Telegraph
Department went to the meat stall and asked for 7 pounds of beef. He made a
tender of Rs. 2.45 which was the value of the beef at the maximum retail price
ruling on that day. Though there was a large quantity of beef in the stall, the
first accused said in Tamil " No beef, cannot give". Mr. Gunawardene complained
to the Police and the Police constable who went to the stall immediately
afterwards found there 977 pounds of beef. The first accused told the constable
when he was weighing the beef that all that quantity of beef had been set apart
to meet " the orders of regular customers which had to be executed". The
constable was shown the lists of customers whose orders amounted to 886 1/2 1b.
for October 15 and 319 pounds for October 16. The constable has stated in his
evidence that he "verified and found the orders to be correct". The evidence led
in the case shows that, in the absence of very special circumstances, cattle
were slaughtered in Nuwara Eliya only on Mondays and Thursdays and that
therefore Abram Saibo & Co. had to reserve a part of the beef received on
October 15, to meet the orders for October 16 which was a Friday. It may be
added that Mr. Gunawardene who has had considerable trouble in obtaining his
supply of beef in October and November got himself registered as a regular
customer of Abram Saibo & Co. towards the end of November and has experienced no
difficulty after that in getting his " regular orders " executed.
On the above facts the accused
were charged with having refused to sell 7 pounds of beef to Mr. Gunawardene on
October 15, 1942, and thereby committed an offence in contravention of section 6
of the Control of Prices Regulations made by the Minister for Labour, Industry
and Commerce under section 4 (3) of the Control of Prices Ordinance and
published in the Government Gazette No. 8,501 of September 11, 1939.
The accused pleaded that there was no beef available for sale to Mr. Gunawardene
as the beef then found in the stall had to be supplied to certain registered
customers. There is no doubt as to the truth of the facts on which that defence
is based. So far as the first accused is concerned the only question I have to
decide is whether this plea affords a valid legal defence to the charge against
him.
Sub-section 1 of Regulation 6 mentioned in the charge read with section 5 of the
Control of Prices Ordinance makes it an offence for a trader to refuse or fail
to supply an article the maximum price of which has been fixed, to a person who
makes a demand for it and tenders payment at such maximum price. But the
Regulation proceeds to state in sub-section 2 that in a prosecution for such an
offence " it
