Weerasekere V. Subramaniam

1948 Present: Wijeyewardene J.

WEERASEKERE, Appellant, and SUBRAMANIAM, Respondent.

541- M. C. Matale, 771.

Control of Prices-Control of Sulphapyridine tablets-Sale of single tablets and not a bottle-Control of Prices Ordinance, No. 39 of 1939, s. 3.

Where the accused was charged with the sale of 8 Sulphapyridine tablets at 50 cents a tablet, a price in excess of the maximum price, in breach of an order made under section 3 of the Control of Prices Ordinance,-

Held, that the accused had not offended against the provisions of the order as the article controlled was a bottle of tablets and not single tablets.

Held, further, that the obligation to issue a receipt arose only in respect of a controlled article.

Section 340 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable only to cases in which a party has no right of appeal except on a point of law.

Solicitor-Genera! v. Perera (17 N.L.R. 413) followed.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Magistrate of Matale. .

S, Nadesan, for petitioner.

E. H. T. Gunasekera, C.C., for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 8, 1943. WIJEYEWARDENE J.-

The accused was charged on two counts : -

(1) that, in breach of the order made under section 3 of the Control of Prices Ordinance, No. 39 of 1939, and published in Gazette No. 9,103 of March 26, 1943, he sold 8 Sulphapyridine tablets (M & B 693) each of .5 gramme in weight at 50 cents a tablet, a price in excess of the maximum price which was 21 cents per tablet.

(2) that he failed to give a receipt to the purchaser as required by the Order (clause vi.) published in Gazette No. 9,096 of March 12, 1943.

The prosecution led evidence to show that one Weerakkody asked for and purchased eight tablets from the accused and that the accused charged Weerakkody fifty cents for each tablet and did not give him a receipt. The Magistrate convicted the accused on that evidence and fined him Rs. 300 on the first count and Rs. 50 on the second count. The accused has appealed against the conviction.

I see no reason for interfering with the Magistrate's findings on the facts. The appellant's Counsel argued that even on the facts as accepted by the Magistrate, the conviction was bad in law. He submitted that the

Order in Gazette No. 9,103 controlled the price of a bottle of 25 tablets and not the price of single tablets and that, therefore, in selling eight loose tablets as ordered by the purchaser the accused was not dealing in an article where maximum price had been fixed by the Order. The Crown Counsel contended on the other hand that the controlled article was a tablet and that the Order stated the price of a bottle of 25 tablets merely for the purpose of assisting a person to ascertain the price of any number of tablets. For a proper appreciation of the argument it is helpful to examine in some detail some of the provisions of the Control of Prices Ordinance, No. 39 of 1939, and the two Orders mentioned in the charge.

Section 3 of the Control of Prices Ordinance empowered the Controller to make an order (a) fixing the maximum price of an article and (b) prescribing the quantity and quality of the article to be sold. It was by virtue of the power vested in him by this Ordinance and certain Defence Regulations that the Controller made the two Orders.

The Order in Gazette No. 9,096 referred to in the second count contains, inter alia, the following clauses : -

Clause (ii.) " The prices specified in column 2 of the schedule (shall) be the maximum price above which drugs of the description mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 1 of the schedule shall not be sold ".

Clause (vii.) " Every person who sells any drugs of the description mentioned in column 1 of the schedule shall give the purchaser of that drug a receipt in which there shall be set out-

(a) the date of sale,

(b) the description of the drugs sold,

(c) the quantity of drugs sold, and

(d) the price

Click Here to Read the rest of this document