Rex v Heigl (Cr.A. 128-1934.)
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 to convict a drawer of obtaining money by false pretences from a person cashing a cheque for a holder, it must be shown that the drawer employed the holder as his agent for encashment. The Court further held that a charge of obtaining money by false pretences must contain particulars of the false representation and an averment of intent to defraud. The conviction was quashed and the appellant acquitted.
Outcome
Appellant acquitted
Facts
The appellant sold eleven cattle to Aziz Mohamed for Sh. 171. After delivery, he gave Aziz a bearer cheque dated 11 June 1934 for that amount, drawn on the Standard Bank of South Africa at Dar es Salaam and marked 'Pay Cash'. Aziz, having no bank account, endorsed the cheque to Ahmed Remtulla, a merchant in Dodoma, who paid him cash. Remtulla sent the cheque to the National Bank of India for collection. It was returned marked 'Refer to Drawer'. On 26 June 1934, when the cheque was presented, only Sh. 13.64 stood to the appellant's credit, with no deposits since 7 June 1934. The appellant was charged with cheating or obtaining money by false pretences and convicted under section 287 of the Tanganyika Penal Code.
Issues
- Whether the drawer of a bearer cheque can be convicted of obtaining money by false pretences from a person who cashed the cheque for a third party holder, absent proof that the drawer employed the holder as his agent for encashment.
- Whether a charge of obtaining money by false pretences must contain particulars of the false representation and an averment of intent to defraud.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Conviction quashed.
- Appellant acquitted.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Penal Code of Tanganyika s.287
- Penal Code of Tanganyika s.289
- Criminal Procedure Code s.88
- Criminal Procedure Code s.335
- Bills of Exchange Act s.73
Cases cited (4)
- Rex v Hazelton (L.R. 2 C.C.R. 134)
- Rex v Cosnett (20 Cox C.C. 6)
- Rex v Dowcy (11 Cox 115)
- Rex v Evans (1 L.T. (N.S.) 107)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.