Wakilii

Rex v Bharaj and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 17 and 18 of 1945 (COnsolidated))

East African Court of Appeal · [1945] EACA 51 · 1945 Appeals Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated criminal appeals from conviction by Acting Resident Magistrate, Nairobi
Decision
Convictions for corruption upheld; appellants each fined Sh. 2,000 and ordered to pay Sh. 500 costs of prosecution

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 held that a defendant is entitled to have a previous statement made by a witness to the police for the purpose of cross-examination. Before a previous statement can be admitted in evidence to contradict a witness, the witness's attention must be called to the relevant part of the statement to give him an opportunity to explain or deny it. The Court dismissed the appeals, finding that despite procedural irregularities and unsatisfactory features in the evidence, the essential facts—particularly the production of Sh. 1,000 by the complainant—remained unchallenged and supported the convictions for corruption.

Outcome

Convictions for corruption upheld; appellants each fined Sh. 2,000 and ordered to pay Sh. 500 costs of prosecution

Facts

The appellants were convicted of corruptly giving Sh. 1,000 to Corporal T. E. Cunningham, a member of the Royal Air Force, as a reward for showing favour to Nand Singh (the first appellant's nephew) in relation to Air Force proceedings. Cunningham testified that the second appellant, Nazir Ahmed, approached him on behalf of the first appellant, Kartar Singh, and offered the bribe. An imperfect trap was set: Cunningham was searched before meeting the accused and returned with Sh. 1,000 which he handed to his Squadron Leader. The defence contended that enemies of the accused supplied the money to frame them, and that a cheque for Sh. 750 (part of the Sh. 1,000) was for a legitimate debt. The Magistrate rejected these explanations and convicted both appellants, imposing fines of Sh. 2,000 each plus Sh. 500 costs.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant is entitled to have a previous statement made by a witness to the police for the purpose of cross-examining the witness on it.
  2. Whether the previous statement may be admitted in evidence to contradict the witness's evidence.
  3. Whether the convictions for corruption under section 383 of the Penal Code should be upheld despite unsatisfactory features in the investigation and evidence.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Cross-examination — Previous Statements to Police — Right of Defendant to Access
A defendant is entitled to have a previous statement made by a witness to the police for the purpose of cross-examining the witness on it.
Evidence — Previous Statements — Procedure for Admission to Contradict Witness
Before a previous statement may be admitted in evidence to contradict a witness's testimony, the witness's attention must be called to the relevant part of the statement so as to give him an opportunity of explaining his meaning or denying that he made any such statement.
Evidence — Indian Evidence Act Section 145 — Cross-examination on Previous Written Statements
Under section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing without such writing being shown to him or being proved, but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him before the writing can be proved.
Criminal Law — Appeals — Assessment of Evidence — Unsatisfactory Witness
Where a trial magistrate has appreciated that a key prosecution witness is not satisfactory in all respects but has accepted the witness's evidence on essential facts which are corroborated by other evidence and remain unchallenged, an appellate court will not interfere with the conviction merely because the witness was unreliable on some points.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.383
  • Indian Evidence Act s.145

Cases cited (2)

  • Rex v Ziyaya (3 E.A.C.A. 31)
  • Rex v Chemulon Wero Olango (4 E.A.C.A. 46)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Bharaj and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 17 and 18 of 1945 (COnsolidated)) [1945] EACA 51 (1 January 1945)
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.