Rex v Ibrahim (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1942)
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 'regimental charge' means in charge of a military unit. Military property held in a stores department is deemed to be in regimental charge, as the stores department is a military unit. It is immaterial whether the articles were issued from military stores for use. The appeal against conviction for detaining stores in regimental charge was dismissed.
Outcome
Conviction upheld; accused to surrender to bail
Facts
The appellant was charged with detaining a motor car tyre and tube in regimental charge contrary to regulation 15(1)(a) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations 1941. The articles were proved by the evidence of Lieutenant Van Dyck to be military property. The appellant submitted that there was no evidence that the tyre and tube were ever in regimental charge. The magistrate convicted the appellant.
Issues
- Whether the term 'regimental charge' in regulation 15(1)(a) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations 1941 includes stores held in a military stores department.
- Whether there was sufficient evidence that the tyre and tube were in regimental charge.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Accused to surrender to his bail.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations 1941 Regulation 15(1)(a)
- Army Act
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.