Rex v Hasmani (Cr. App. No. 8-1938)
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 dismissed the appeal against conviction on twenty-five counts of fraud-related offences. The Court held that depositions of absent witnesses were properly admitted where a police officer gave sworn evidence of their absence at the time of trial. A confession made to police under section 25 of the Evidence Act should have been excluded when tendered to prove prior inconsistent statements. A document signed per procuration by a person without authority, referring to non-existent goods, constitutes forgery under the Penal Code even where signed per pro.
Outcome
Appellant's conviction on all twenty-five counts upheld
Facts
The appellant was convicted on twenty-five counts including forgery, uttering, obtaining money by false pretences and attempts to obtain money by false pretences. He signed insurance policies per procuration on behalf of an insurance company, purporting to act under his father's power of attorney which contained no power of substitution. The policies were false in material particulars and referred to non-existent goods which the appellant knew to be non-existent. At trial, depositions of two prosecution witnesses were read after a police officer testified they had left the Territory. The appellant alleged these witnesses had returned before trial and one was present in court, but this was not raised during the trial. A written confession to police was admitted to prove prior inconsistent statements. The appellant claimed he was merely a pawn of dishonest bank managers.
Issues
- Whether depositions of absent witnesses were properly admitted under section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Code where the witnesses had allegedly returned to the Territory before trial.
- Whether a written confession made to the police should be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving prior inconsistent statements.
- Whether a document signed per procuration by a person without authority to sign constitutes forgery within the meaning of Chapter XXXIV of the Penal Code.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction on all 25 counts upheld.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Indian Evidence Act s.25
- Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.265
- Penal Code (Tanganyika) Chapter XXXIV
- Forgery Act 1861 s.24
Cases cited (2)
- Morrison v London County & Westminster Bank Ltd [1914] 3 KB 356
- Rex v White (1 Den 208)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.