Remtulla v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 1949)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal held that under section 91(2) of the Penal Code, a person who corruptly gives or offers money to a public officer to induce omission of duty commits an offence regardless of whether the corrupt gift was corruptly accepted. Proof of corrupt acceptance by the recipient is not a necessary element of the offence.
Outcome
Conviction upheld
Facts
The accused owned a bus on which a plain clothes constable was counting passengers. The accused winked at the constable and handed him Sh. 15, asking the constable to leave him alone. The constable immediately drew his associates' attention to the fact that they had witnessed him being given the money. The accused was convicted of corruption of a public officer.
Issues
- Whether proof is necessary that a corrupt gift or offer was corruptly accepted by the recipient for an offence under section 91(2) to be established.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Penal Code s.91(2)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.