Wakilii

Rex v Hassan (Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 1948)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 75 · 1948 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction under Penal Code section 316
Decision
Appellant acquitted and discharged

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

Held that before a person can be charged under section 316 of the Penal Code for possession of property reasonably suspected of having been stolen, the circumstances set out in section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be present. The property must be found by a police officer or authorized person, and the accused must be conveying it. Where property was found in the appellant's bedding by a European farm employee and not by a police officer, and was not being conveyed, the conviction was quashed.

Outcome

Appellant acquitted and discharged

Facts

A European employee on a farm encountered the appellant in circumstances in which he arrested him and took possession of bedding upon which the appellant had been sleeping. A .38 revolver was found in the bedding. The appellant and the property were handed over to the police. On the following day, an askari found a packet of cartridges in the bedding. The appellant was charged with and convicted of an offence contrary to section 316 of the Penal Code for possession of property reasonably suspected of having been stolen, namely a .38 revolver and 21 rounds of ammunition, and failing to give a satisfactory account thereof.

Issues

  1. Whether the circumstances required by section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code were present to sustain a conviction under section 316 of the Penal Code for possession of property reasonably suspected of having been stolen.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Conviction and sentence quashed.
  • Appellant to be liberated forthwith if in custody.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Possession of Property Reasonably Suspected Stolen — Penal Code s.316 — Preconditions under Criminal Procedure Code s.25
Before a person can be charged under section 316 of the Penal Code for possession of property reasonably suspected of having been stolen, the circumstances set out in section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be present, namely that the property must be found by a police officer or a person authorized in writing by the Commissioner of Police, and the accused must be conveying the property.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Possession of Property Reasonably Suspected Stolen — Property Found by Non-Police Officer
Where property is found not by a police officer or authorized person but by a private individual, and is not being conveyed by the accused but is found in the accused's bedding, the requirements of section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not satisfied and a conviction under section 316 of the Penal Code cannot stand.
Statutory Interpretation — Penal Code s.316 — Interpretation Ejusdem Generis with Conveying
Section 316 of the Penal Code applies only to cases where the accused, having been detained by a police officer under section 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is found to be conveying or in possession ejusdem generis with conveying property reasonably suspected of having been stolen.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Penal Code s.316
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.25
  • Metropolitan Police Act

Cases cited (1)

  • Circular to Magistrates, No. 16 of 1939, 18 K.L.R 215

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Hassan (Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 1948) [1948] EACA 75 (1 January 1948)
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.