Rex v Mehta (Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 1948)
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 for unlawfully buying raw gold. The Court held that while police traps are undesirable, if evidence supports a conviction the court must uphold it. Whether a witness participating in a police trap requires corroboration depends on the witness's character, extent of participation, and motive. The Court distinguished cases on their facts and held that the lower courts were entitled to find sufficient corroboration of the key witness. The failure to recover the gold did not destroy the prosecution case where other believed evidence proved the transaction.
Outcome
Conviction and sentence upheld
Facts
The appellant was convicted of unlawfully buying raw gold contrary to section 5(1) of the Gold Trading Ordinance and sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour plus a fine of Sh. 3,000 or a further six months in default. The case involved a police trap in which Gurdiar Singh was deliberately sent by police to sell raw gold to the appellant. Gurdiar Singh entered the appellant's house with Sh. 5 and emerged with Sh. 265 in notes. The appellant's wife came out and looked left and right after Gurdiar Singh entered. The gold was tested by the Land and Mines Officer who certified it as alluvial gold nuggets. Police did not recover the trap gold from the appellant's premises. The High Court of Tanganyika upheld the conviction on first appeal.
Issues
- Whether the substance sold was raw gold as defined in the Gold Trading Ordinance.
- Whether the principal prosecution witness and police witnesses who arranged the trap were accomplices requiring corroboration.
- Whether the evidence accepted as corroboration was sufficient in law to corroborate accomplice evidence.
- Whether the failure to find the trap gold on the appellant's premises was fatal to the conviction.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Gold Trading Ordinance (Tanganyika) Cap. 104 s.5(1)
- Gold Trading Ordinance (Tanganyika) Cap. 104 s.2
- Indian Evidence Act s.145
Cases cited (4)
- Brannan v Peek (1947) 2 All ER 573
- Habib v Rex (1934) 1 EACA 191
- Parentis v Rex (1937) 4 TTLR 46
- Rex v Ramasami Padayachi (1878) ILR 1 Madras 394
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.