Wakilii

Rex (Price Controller) v Hemraj (Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1947)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 37 · 1947 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing appeal from conviction by Resident Magistrate of Mombasa
Decision
Appellant's conviction quashed and fine ordered to be refunded

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 allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The magistrate had relied on a piece of paper containing notes made by the prosecution witness at the time of inspection, which was never produced in court. As the magistrate stated that but for this piece of paper he would not necessarily have convicted the appellant, and as the piece of paper was the actual written record on which the criminal proceedings were instituted, the conviction could not stand.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction quashed and fine ordered to be refunded

Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Resident Magistrate of Mombasa of failing to comply with a Price Controller's order by not marking prices in plain English figures on goods exposed for sale (soap, tea, fruit, cigarettes, and tinned milk). The sole prosecution evidence came from Mr. Adams, a price inspector, who visited the appellant's shop on 1 February 1947 for five minutes. Adams made several damaging admissions: he could not identify the accused's shop with certainty among nine or ten similar shops visited that morning; he did not remember how many containers of goods he found; his eyesight was not good; and he had made an inaccurate report about another shop the day before. Adams testified that he recorded a list of unpriced commodities on a piece of paper in the accused's presence, which he sent to the Price Controller and upon which the prosecution was founded. This piece of paper was never produced at trial. The appellant appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court of Kenya before appealing to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Issues

  1. Whether the conviction could stand where the magistrate relied on the contents of a document (a piece of paper containing notes) that was not produced in court.
  2. Whether the evidence of the price inspector was sufficient to sustain the conviction given his multiple admissions weakening his testimony.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgments of both Courts below set aside.
  • Conviction quashed.
  • Fine of Sh. 300 (if paid) to be refunded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Reliance on Unproduce Documents — Effect on Conviction
Where a magistrate relies on the contents of a document as corroborating prosecution evidence and states that but for that document he would not necessarily have convicted, the conviction cannot stand if the document was never produced in court.
Criminal Procedure — Sufficiency of Evidence — Weaknesses in Prosecution Case
Where the sole prosecution witness makes multiple admissions that weaken his evidence, including inability to identify the accused's premises with certainty, poor recollection of material facts, and a history of inaccurate reporting, a conviction based solely on such evidence is unsafe.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Distinction Between Memory-Refreshing Notes and Foundational Documents
A piece of paper containing notes made at the time of an inspection is not merely a memory-refreshing document when it is the actual written record sent to a superior officer upon which criminal proceedings are instituted; such a document must be produced at trial.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 Reg.19(2)(a)
  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations 1945 Reg.21
  • Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers No. 2) Order 1946
  • Evidence Act s.157

Cases cited (1)

  • R v Sahib Singh and Others (18 K.L.R. 145)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rex (Price Controller) v Hemraj (Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1947) [1947] EACA 37 (1 January 1947)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.