New Law Reports
Volume 9, Page No 335
Present; The Hon. Mr. A. G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice.
IBRAHIM v. JAMALDEEN BAI.
P.C., Puttalam, 11,395.
Exposing for sale beef unfit for food-Criminal liability of master for the act of his servant-Penal Code, s, 266.
The master is criminally liable for the act of his servant in exposing for sale any article which has become unfit for food, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food, which is an offence punishable under section 266 of the Penal Code.
The principle laid down in Coppen v. Moore(1(1898) 2 Q. B. 306.) followed.
New Law Reports
Volume 21, Page No 417
[FULL BENCH.
Present : Ennis and De Sampayo JJ. and Loos A.J.
THOMASZ v. SAIBO.
113-P. C. Colombo, 27,041.
Food controls-Defence of the Colony Regulations, 1919-Order fixing the price of flour-Ultra vires.
The order of the Food Controller, fixing the price at which floor, Ac, should be sold, made under Regulation 1 of the Defence of the Colony Regulations, 1919, is not ultra vires.
New Law Reports
Volume 27, Page No 56
Present: Schneider J.
NAIR v. MATHEW FERNANDO et al.
458-P. C. Hatton, 647.
Food-Sale in a state unfit for human consumption-Guilty knowledge- Penal Code, e. 266.
A person cannot be convicted under section 266 of the Penal Code with having sold food in a state unfit for human consumption, except upon proof that he knew or had reason to believe that the food was unsound.
THE accused were charged and convicted with having sold half a pound of beef suet in a state unfit for food under section 266 of the Penal Code. The first accused, who was the employer of the second accused, was fined Rs. 30, the second being discharged with a warning. The evidence was to the effect that the suet was sold to a customer by the second accused who was the salesman and who had got the suet from one Mohideen a few days previously. The first accused appealed from the conviction, on the ground that he was not affected with knowledge that the suet sold was unsound.
New Law Reports
Volume 46, Page No 70
1944 Present : Howard C.J.
TAMBY LEBBE Appellant, and VAVUNIYA POLICE,
Respondent.
1316-P-M.C. Vavuniya, 19,173.
Defence (War Equipment) {Purchase by Civilians) Regulations, 1944-Purchase of military rations by accused-Burden of proof-Regulation 2 (1) and (2).
Where the accused is charged under the Defence (War Equipment) (Purchase by Civilians) Regulations with the purchase of military rations and the prosecution establishes that the accused purchased an article within the meaning of the regulations the burden is cast upon the accused of bringing himself within the terms of sub-regulation (2), viz., of proving that he acted in ignorance of the fact that the article was one to which the regulations apply.
New Law Reports
Volume 46, Page No 167
1945 Present: Wijeyewardene J.
KIRI BANDA, Appellant, and INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
GAMPOLA, Respondent.
1,109-M. C. Gampola, 8,606.
Food control-Unlawful possession of ration books by authorised distributors-Possession bona fide-Accused discharged with a warning-Regulation 11 (8) of head E of Part 3 of Food Control Regulations.
Under Regulation 11 (8) of head E, Part 3, of the Food Control Regulations no authorised distributor shall keep in his possession the ration book of any person other than himself or a member of his house hold.
The accused, an authorised distributor of controlled commodities, was directed by a headman who was acting on the authority of the Deputy Food Controller to instruct his customers to bring their ration books to his boutique for inspection by the headman.
The accused, instead of telling the customers that they should wait for the arrival of the headman, had permitted thirty-eight book holders to leave their ration books at his boutique for examination by the head man in their absence.
Held, that the , accused, although he acted in contravention of the aforementioned Food Control Regulation, did so in good faith and should be discharged with a warning under the provisions of section 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
New Law Reports
Volume 47, Page No 40
1946 Present: Howard C. J
PINTO, Appellant, and PRICE CONTROLLER, Respondent.
1,456-M. C. Negombo, 45,620.
Control of Prices (Food) Ordinance- Sale of beef without bones- Control of sale of beef in excess of 35 cents- Price Regulations Order.
Where the accused was charged with selling country beef for 50 cents, a price in excess of the controlled price, viz., 35 cents and where the defence was that beef without bones, which was sold by him, was not controlled-
Held, that the accused had offended against the regulation fixing the price of controlled beef.
New Law Reports
Volume 47, Page No 43
1946 Present: Jayetileke J.
CHOW, et al., Appellants, and DE ALWIS (PRICE
CONTROL INSPECTOR), Respondent.
937-9- M. C. Colombo, 48,698.
Catering establishment- Restriction of meals- Defence (Restriction of Meals) (No. 3) Regulations, 1944, Regulation 2 (1).
The provisions of regulation 2 (1) of the Defence (Restriction of Meals) (No. 3) Regulations, 1944, are applicable establishment which was in existence in September, 1939, but which subsequently came to be run by different proprietors between whom and the previous proprietors there was no privity of contract.
1946 Present: Wijeyewardene J.
WATSON, Appellant, and RAMIAH, Respondent.
661-M. C. Hatton, 7,890.
Food control Regulations-Duty of Superintendent of an Estate to sell rice to all persons resident on the Estate-Meaning of the term ?resident?.
Where R, a supervising Kangany on an estate, was dismissed from his post but continued to remain on the estate and live with his wife who was a labourer on the estate-
Held, that R was a person whom the Superintendent of the estate was bound, under Regulations 4 (1) in Part II (Head E) of the Food Control Regulations, to supply with rice.
New Law Reports
Volume 47, Page No 475
1946 Present: Dias J.
WEKUNAGODA, Appellant, and DE ALWIS, Respondent.
960-M. C., Galle, 648.
Food control-Regulations 11 (6) in part III of the food control Regulations-Meaning of forthwith?.
By Regulation II (6) in part III of the food control Regulations ?Every authorized distributor, wholesale dealer or importer shall keep such books or registers and make such entries therein as the Food Controller may require, and shall forthwith produces such books or registers for inspection on demand made by the Food Controller or by any person authorized by him for the purpose.?
Held, that the word ?forthwith? in the Regulations means ?in a reasonable time?. What is ?reasonable? must depend on the circumstances of each case. The word ?reasonable? is to be interpreted, not as meaning reasonable from the point of view of its effect upon the person to whom or in relation to whom the act is done, but reasonable from the point of view of the person who is called upon to do it.
| New Law Reports |
1946 Present :Canekeratne J.
CAREEM, Appellant, and WICKREMERATNE (PRICE CONTROL INSPECTOR),
Respondent.
942 - M.C. Kurunegala, 26, 724.
Food Control-Charge of unlawful possession of rice ration books-Innocent custody on behalf of other persons-No offense-Defence Food Control (Special Provisions) (No. 3) Regulations, 1943, s. 15(2).
Some persons brought rice ration books to the boutique of a trader, under whom the accused was employed, to buy chilly and sugar. As the trader had gone to Kurunegala to bring these articles they left the books at the boutique and went to a place nearby-
Held, that the accused had not acted in contravention of section 15 (2) of the Defence Food Control (Special Provisions) (No. 3) Regulations, 1943.
New Law Reports
Volume 48, Page No 19
1946 Present : Nagalingam A.J.
THIRUGNANAM, Appellant, and WEERASINGHE, TEA CONTROL
INSPECTOR, Respondent.
392 - M. C. Colombo, 11,792.
Defence (Control of Tea Sales ) Regulations 1943, Regulation 6A- Possession of packeted tea-Meaning of verb "to packet".
Where the accused was convicted of having had in his possession or under his control 42 two-pound boxes and 4 five-pound boxes of made tea other than tea packeted by the Tea Commissioner, in contravention of Regulation 6A of the Defence (Control of Tea Sales ) Regulations 1943-
Held that the circumstances that the tea had been put into wooden boxes did not remove it from the category of "packeted tea" within the meaning of Regulation 6A.
New Law Reports
Volume 48, Page No 38
1946 Present : Dias J.
MUHEED, Appellant, and ABEYESINGHE (P. S. 271).
Respondent.
1,100 - M. C. Kegalla, 10,975.
Defence Food Control ( special Provisions) (No.3) Regulations, 1943, Regulation 15 (2) - Charge of unlawful possession of rice ration books - Prosecution must prove actual and exclusive possession.
In a prosecution for possession of rice ration books other than those issued to the accused and the other members of his household, in breach of Regulation 15 (2) of the Defence Food Control ( Special Provisions) (No.3) Regulations, 1943, it must be proved that the accused's possession of the books was actual and exclusive.
New Law Reports
Volume 48, Page No 441
1947 Present: Dias J.
WEERARATNE, Petitioner, and POULIER, FOOD
COMMISSIONER, et al, Respondents.
S. C. 134-Application for a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus
on the Food Commissioner and the Assistant Food Controller
Kandy District.
Certiorari-Food Control (Special Provisions) Regulatoins, 1943-Section 18(1) Revocation of authority given to " authorised distributor "--" If he considers it expedient so to do in the interests of the public "-Does Deputy Food Controller act in a judicial or an administrative capacity ?
Section 18 (1) of the Food Control (Special Provisions) Regulations, 1943, empowered the Deputy Food Controller to revoke the authority given to an " authorised distribute if he considered it expedient so to do lift the interests of the public
Held, that in acting under these powers the Deputy Food Controller was acting in an administrative capacity and not in a judicial capacity, and that certiorari did not lie.
New Law Reports
Volume 49, Page No 18
1947 Present: Wijeyewardene, J.
MAMMASALIE, Appellant, and THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANDY, Respondent.
S. C. 1,044-M. C. Kandy, 25,217
Food Control-Order made under section 4 (1) (a) of Food Control Ordinance (Cap.132)-Valid only for two months-Conviction under Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulation 52 (1)-Order of confirmation illegal.
Where the accused was charges, under Food Control Order No. 109, with transporting flour without a permit-
Held, that a conviction for the contravention of an Order made by a Minister under the Food Control Ordinance is illegal if the Order has, by virtue of section 4 (5) of the Food Control Ordinance, already ceased to be in force after a period of two months.
Held, further, that the Defence (Miscellaneous) Regulation 52 (1) does not enable a Magistrate to make an order of confiscation.
New Law Reports
Volume 49, Page No 498
1948 Present : Dias J.
EDIRISINGHE,Petitioner and RAJENDRA,
Respondent.
S. C. 399-APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS ON THE ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT AGENT AND DEPUTY FOOD CONTROLLER,
MATARA.
Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus-Application by trader for writ on Food Controller- Is it a civil action ?-Food Control Ordinance-Chapter 132-Section 7A.
An application for a writ of certiorari and mandamus on the Food Controller is not a civil action within the meaning of section 7a of the Food Control Ordinance.
New Law Reports
Volume 66, Page No 185
1963 Present: Herat, J.
R. CORNELIS and another, Appellants, and INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, KAMBURUPITIYA, Respondent
S. C. 923-924-M. C. Matara, 73567
Food Control Act-Section 4 (1) (i)-Order No. 184 made thereunder on January 26, 7962-Charge of transporting rice without a permit-Burden of proof-Evidence Ordinance, s. 105.
In a prosecution for transporting rice without a permit in contravention of the relevant Order published under section 4 (1) (i) of the Food Control Act, the burden of proving that the rice was locally grown rice, as mentioned in the proviso to the Order, is upon the accused.
New Law Reports
Volume 66, Page No 220
1963 Present: T. S. Fernando, J.
KADAWATA MEDA KORALE MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES UNION LTD., Petitioner, and A. RATNAVALE (Deputy
Food Controller) and another, Respondents
S. C. 311 of 1963--In the matter of an Application in the nature of
Writs of Certiorari and/or Mandamus under Section 42 of the Courts Ordinance.
Certiorari-Food Control Act (Cap. 171)-Section 8-Revocation of authorisation issued to a wholesale dealer-Procedure-Are functions of Deputy Food Controller of a judicial or administrative nature ?-" if he considers it expedient so to do in the interests of the public "-Applicability of audi alteram partem rule-Natural justice-Question of penalty versus revocation-Mandamus.
The petitioner Union was a wholesale dealer which was authorised, in terms of Regulations made under section 6 of the Food Control Act, to deal in rationed commodities. It received from the 1st respondent (the Deputy Food Controller) a letter dated June 27, 1963, which read as follows :-
" I hereby cancel the licence issued to the Kadawata Meda Korale Multipurpose Co-operative Societies Union Ltd. as a wholesale dealer under clause 8 (1) of the Food Control Act, No. 25 of 1950. "
New Law Reports
Volume 67, Page No 20
1964 Present : Tambiah, J.
M. MANIKE, Petitioner, and N. D. JAYAWEERA (Deputy Food Controller)
and another, Respondents
S. C. 355,64-Application for a Writ of Mandamus
Food Control Act (Cap. 171)-Regulations framed under section 6-Regulation 4 (2) of Part III-Rice ration book-Effect of describing it as a non-national rice ration book-Citizenship Act. s. 6-Mandamus.
A holder of a rice ration book which has been described, for administrative purposes, as a " non-national rice ration book " cannot obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the Deputy Food Controller to issue a fresh ration book on the footing that he is a citizen of Ceylon. The mere declaration that a person is a citizen of Ceylon or a non-citizen by the officers who are bound by Regulation 4 (2) of Fart III of the Food-Control Regulations to issue rice ration books does not confer the status of citizenship or deprive a person of his citizenship.
New Law Reports
Volume 72, Page No 22
1969 Present: de Kretser, J.
T. SIVASUPRAMANIAM, Appellant, and C. P. DABARE
(Inspector of Food and Drugs), Respondent
S. C. 966/68-M. M. C. Maligakanda, 30994
Food and Drugs Act (Cap. 216)-Section 4-Sale of food not of the nature, sub8tance or quality demanded-Quantum- of evidence.
A seller does not contravene the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act if the purchaser has notice at the time of sale that the article sold to him is not of the nature, substance and quality of the article which ho demands.
New Law Reports
Volume 75, Page No 358
Present: Rajaratnam, J.
S. M. THASTHAKEER, Appellant, and P. J. N. JAYASEKERA,
Respondent
S. C. 253/71-M. C. Colombo South, 16330/B
Food and Drugs Act (Cap. 216)-Section 4 (1)-Charge thereunder against a salesman in respect of a sale of Orange Jam-Quantum of evidence-Mens rea Applicability of s. 72 of Penal Code to a statutory offence.
The accused-appellant, who was a salesman in a shop, was charged with having contravened the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act by soiling an article of food (a bottle of Orange Jam) which was not of the substance of food demanded by the purchaser. The Government Analyst gave evidence that there was only 8-01%,of orange and 34% of Ash pumpkin in the article sold and that the entire fruit content was separated from the rest of the jam which contained sugar, glucose and water.
Held, that, on a consideration of the Analyst's evidence, it was impossible to arrive at a finding that the article sold was Orange Jam in nature, substance or quality. Nevertheless, the appellant was not liable to be convicted. As a mere salesman in a shop far away from the factory, he could not have known what the exact composition was in the bottle of jam. He could not therefore have had the guilty knowledge or intention to commit the alleged offence. A defence under section 72 of the Penal Code is available in statutory offences also.
Kumarasinghe v The Food and Drugs Inspector Ratnapura, 76 C.L.W. 60.
Sections 56(1) and 57 – Sale of outdated drug – Purchase after scrutinising labels by purchaser – Can sale be said to be one to to the prejudice of purchaser.
BERTRAM, C.J, ENNIS, J., AND DE SAMPAYO, J.
KACHCHERI MUDALIYAR V MOHAMMADDO
1002 C. R. Anuradhapura, 48906.
3rd February, 1920.
Pg 168 – The Ceylon Law Recorder Vol 1-2
Penal Code, section 490- Attempt to commit an offence outside the Code-Is it punishable under this section ? - English Criminal Law – How far in force in Ceylon ?
Where a person attempted to transport paddy in contravention of certain regulations made by the Food Controller.
Held that he could not be charged with an attempt to commit an offence under section 490 of the Penal Code. The Order forfeiting the paddy was set aside as not being authorized by the regulations or Order in Council.
The effect of the passing of the Penal Code was to do away with any portion of the criminal law of England which may have been introduced into Ceylon.
Comments
Post a Comment