Principles

·  Criminal Procedure—-punishment of company—Penalty of endorsement of trader’s licence cannot be extended to endorsement of certificates of registration of a company, or of the register A charge under Prices and Charges Order, 1955, ss. 6, 9 and 10, is not punishable under those same sections, which are not penalizing provisions, but under residual Control Ordinance, 1950, ss. 10 or 12, under which the 1955 Order was made.

 The power to order endorsement of a trader’s licence as a penalty under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950. s. 12. Cannot be extended so as to amount to a power to order a similar endorsement of the certificates of registration or of the registration itself, of a company, where a company is accused of an offence punishable under section 12. Section 12, being a penal statute, must be strictly construed.

Judgment

 M. A. Hassib J. October 11, 1962 —This is an application by advocate Ahmed Guma’a on behalf of the Carbon Dioxide Company made against the order of the Province Judge, Khartoum, dated August 13, 1962, confirming the finding and sentence passed by the Police Magistrate, Khartoum in NS-93-1961 and also adding an order under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 12 for indorsement of the trader’s licence of accused.

             The magistrate charged the Carbon Dioxide Company under Prices and Charges Order, 1955, ss. 9 and 10, for sale of carbon dioxide at excessive prices and for refusal to issue invoices for the sales made by him, in contravention of sections 6 and 10 of the Order, but convicted accused under section 6 and acquitted him under section 10 of the Order; accused was then sentenced to fine of £S.50.

On application against the finding and sentence the learned Province Judge confirmed a finding of guilty under section 6 of the Order and the sentence of £S.50 fine under Residual Control Ordinance. 1950, s. 10. He further entered an order under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 12, against accused.

This application is now attacking the decision of the Province Judge confirming the sentence under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 10, on the ground that there was no such a sentence under Residual Control Ordinance, s. 10, and also attacking the finding of guilty under Prices and Charges Order, 1955, s. 6, on the ground that the profit taken by accused was not excessive.

  The Prices and Charges Order, 1955 is an Order made under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 4 (i). It follows that all contraventions under the Ordinance are punishable under section 10 of the Ordinance. Therefore contravention of section 6 of the Order is punishable under section 10 (c) of the Ordinance. The right charge and finding for sale at excessive prices should have been under section 6 of the Order as punishable under Section 10 of the Ordinance.

 If the magistrate’s finding as to this contravention is correct, then the decision of the learned Province Judge is also correct.

The magistrate found that the profit levied by accused was 62 per cent, and that was, in the circumstances of the transaction, excessive. He arrived at the conclusion that the reasonable profit should not exceed 30 per cent.

He was right in his conclusion and I therefore see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Province Judge as to this point.

 There remains to consider whether the order made under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 12, by the learned Province Judge was or was not correct.

 This section refers to a trader’s licence only. It did not suggest indorsement of certificates of registration of a company or the register thereof. The law might have been defective but penal statutes require strict interpretation, and as the legislator has intentionally omitted companies from indorsement, I cannot dare to agree with the learned Province Judge. I therefore order quashing of the order of the Province Judge under Residual Control Ordinance, 1950, s. 12.

 Lastly, I should like to emphasize that there was no acquittal under Residual Control Ordinance, s. 10, as suggested by the learned advocate Ahmed Guma’a. It is true that there was an acquittal on the second charge preferred against accused for contravention of section 10 of the Order for refusing to issue invoices. This was also punishable under Residual Control Ordinance, s. 10. It is interesting to note that the sections of the Order are not penalizing provisions and the magistrate should refrain from considering them as such in future.