[1943] EACA 55
The court held that Mohanlal, as a hotel-keeper, was a retailer under the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941, because he purchased rice for use in his business and supplied it to customers, thus acting as a trader selling goods to consumers. The certificate fixing the maximum wholesale price for rice,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 55
- Parties
- Appellant: Karamshi Meghji; Appellant: Nathu Punja Shah; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 9 & 10 of 1943 (Consolidated)
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
- Judges
- Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya), Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Defence Regulations, Price Control Offences, Definition of Consumer, Definition of Retailer, Validity of Certificate, Hotel Keeper Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Karamshi Meghji
Appellant
Nathu Punja Shah
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a hotel-keeper purchasing rice for use in his business is a consumer or a retailer under the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941.
- 2 Whether the certificate issued by the Price Controller fixing the maximum wholesale price for rice was invalid due to incorrect recital of the issuing authority.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Mohanlal, as a hotel-keeper, was a retailer under the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941, because he purchased rice for use in his business and supplied it to customers, thus acting as a trader selling goods to consumers. The certificate fixing the maximum wholesale price for rice, although citing Regulation 5 of the 1941 Regulations instead of the correct authority, was not invalidated by this error. The certificate was prima facie evidence of the price fixed, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The appeals were dismissed and the sentences confirmed, as no substantive legal error was found in the trial court's reasoning or application of the regulations.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Orders
- The appeals are dismissed.
- The sentences imposed by the trial court are confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CRIMINAL
BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., AND LUCIE-SMITH, J.
REX. Respondent.
$\cdot$ $v$ .
(1) KARAMSHI MEGHJI, partner of KARAMSHI & COMPANY, Appellant (Original Accused No. 1)
## (2) NATHU PUNJA SHAH, partner of KARAMSHI & COMPANY, Appellant (Original Accused No. 2)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 9 & 10 of 1943 (Consolidated)
Defence Regulations<sup>1</sup>-Price Control-Hotel-keeper-Retailer-Certificate of Controller
The facts appear from the Judgment.
$\forall A.$ B. Patel (Trivedi with him) for both appellants.
Stacev. Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (22-4-43). — Two points were argued before us in these consolidated appeals. The first is that Mohanlal, a hotel-keeper to whom the rice in question was sold by the accused, was a consumer and that consequently no offence was committed, the transaction not being one between a wholesaler and retailer. The question then is was Mohanlal a consumer or a retailer. "Consumer" is defined by the Defence (Price of Goods) Regulations, 1941, as meaning "Any person who purchases or offers to purchase goods for his own use or consumption and not for re-sale". An ingenious argument that a hotel-keeper was not a retailer but a consumer was put forward by Mr. A. B. Patel, an argument which was not put forward at the trial. "Retailer" is defined in the Regulations as meaning "a trader who sells goods to a consumer". It seems to us that of the two definitions a hotelkeeper comes within the second definition. He carries on a trade or business for profit and when he buys goods (rice in this case) in wholesale quantities for the purpose of supplying meals to his customers, his position is that of a trader selling goods to a customer. And so we agree with the learned Magistrate in finding that "Mohanlal as a hotel-keeper selling goods to a customer is a retailer". Another point, also raised for the first time on appeal, is that the certificate issued by the Price Controller fixing the maximum wholesale price for the rice is invalid for the reason that it was issued under Regulation 5 of the 1941 Regulations. In our opinion there is no substance in this point. The offence charged was in respect of a contravention of the price fixed under the 1939 and 1941 Regulations. The certificate purports to have been issued in pursuance of Regulation 5 of the 1941 Regulations, but it cannot be seriously contended that this inaccurate recital of the authority for issuing the certificate invalidates the certificate. Regulation 20 of the 1942 Regulations and not Regulation 5 of the 1941 Regulations should have been recited. (See Regulation 29 of the 1942 Regulations.) The certificate is *prima facie* evidence of the fact certificated and there was no evidence to the contrary. (See Regulation 18 of the 1941 Regulations.) No other point was argued. The appeals are dismissed and the sentences confirmed.