Food And Price Control Inspector V. Piyasena

1955 Present : Weerasooriya, J.

FOOD AND PRICE CONTROL INSPECTOR, Appellant, and
PIYASENA, Respondent

S. C. 594-M. C, Matale, 4,316

Control of Prices Act, No. 29 of 1950-Section 4-Price Order-Prosecution thereunder -Proof of Minister's approval of the price order not essential-Mode of proof of the price order-Judicial notice-Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 11), ss. 57, 78 (3).

Where a person is charged with contravening a price order made and signed by the Controller and published in the Government Gazette under sub-sections 1, 3 and 4 of section 4 of the Control of Prices Act, it is not obligatory on the prosecution to place before the Court the fact (whether as a matter to be proved by evidence or to be taken judicial notice of) that the price order has duly received the Minister's approval.

The Court may take judicial notice of a price order which is referred to in the Government Gazette. Alternatively, the price order, being a public document issued by a department of Her Majesty's Government, may be proved, under Section 78 (3) of the Evidence Ordinance, by a copy or extract of it contained in the Government Gazette.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Matale.

H. A. Wijemanne, Crown Counsel, with Shiva Pasupati, Crown Counsel, for the complainant appellant.

G. E. Chitty, with Daya Perera, for the accused respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 22, 1955. WEERASOORIYA, J.-

The respondent to this appeal was charged under the Control of Prices Act, No. 29 of 1950, with the commission of an offence the gist of which was that he sold two pounds of wheat flour at a price which, in terms of a certain price order referred to in the charge, was two cents in excess of the maximum retail price of forty-eight cents.

The price order in question was one made under S. 4 (1) of the Act. S. 4 (3) provides that an order under s. 4 (1) shall come into operation when it is made and signed. The Act contains further provision for an order when signed to be published in the Government Gazette and also to be submitted to the Minister, who is empowered either to approve or rescind it. Under S. 4 (6), where an order is rescinded notice of such rescission shall be published in the Gazette and the order shall be deemed to be rescinded with effect from the date of such publication " but without prejudice to anything done or suffered thereunder or any right, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder " ; and under S. 4 (7)

an order which has been approved by the Minister is, upon notification of the approval in the Gazette, deemed to be as valid and effectual as if it were part of the Act itself.

These provisions make it clear, I think, that once an order has been made and signed (and also, perhaps, duly published) it becomes fully operative independently of any further efficacy it may receive from the subsequent notification of its approval by the Minister. That the particular order under consideration was duly made, signed and published was sought to be proved by the Gazette notification P 4 which was put in evidence by the prosecution. The charge framed against the respondent also contained a reference to the Gazette in which the order was published.

At the close of the case for the prosecution although the defence was called upon to meet the charge no evidence was adduced on its behalf and counsel for the respondent, instead, addressed certain submissions to Court on an acceptance of one of which, at least, the Magistrate acquitted the respondent. The ground for the acquittal is set out in these terms in the Magistrate's order : " The failure on the part of the prosecution to produce the Gazette notification of the approval by the Minister of the price order made, or even to make mention or reference to it in the plaint is, in my opinion, a fatal irregularity which will enure to the benefit of the accused ". It wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document