Wakilii

Rex v Mohamed (Cr. App No. 77-1938)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 199 · 1938 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from magistrate's conviction for receiving stolen property
Decision
Appellant's conviction for receiving stolen property upheld

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 in a charge of receiving stolen property, a thief is a competent witness and a conviction may be based on his evidence if confirmed. While the onus of proof always remains on the prosecution, proof of possession by the accused of goods recently stolen creates a presumption of fact against the accused, placing an onus on him to account satisfactorily for his possession. Guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances attending the receiving. The conviction was upheld.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for receiving stolen property upheld

Facts

The appellant, a licensed coffee dealer, was convicted of being in possession of stolen coffee knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen. Three bags of coffee, identified as coming from Wispers Farm, were found at the back of his store during a police search. The coffee had been stolen in November or December and was found in January. When asked by a Police Officer to produce his register as required by the Coffee Industry Ordinance, the appellant failed to do so. He initially denied buying coffee from a native and claimed he had no coffee on the premises. After the coffee was discovered, he claimed he had bought it from another dealer and produced an invoice for coffee of 'T' grade, but this story was found to be untrue. The coffee was wet, a condition in which coffee does not normally change hands between dealers legitimately. A thief testified that he had sold the coffee to the appellant, and the magistrate accepted this part of his evidence as confirmed by other circumstances.

Issues

  1. Whether there was sufficient evidence of receiving stolen property by the appellant.
  2. Whether there was sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant.
  3. Whether the thief's evidence was properly corroborated to support a conviction.
  4. Whether the appellant discharged the onus to account satisfactorily for possession of recently stolen goods.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Receiving Stolen Property — Competence of Thief as Witness — Corroboration
In a charge of receiving stolen property, a thief is a competent witness and a conviction may be based upon his evidence if confirmed by other evidence.
Evidence — Receiving Stolen Property — Onus of Proof — Burden on Prosecution
The onus of proof in a charge of receiving stolen property always remains upon the prosecution.
Evidence — Receiving Stolen Property — Presumption from Recent Possession — Onus to Explain
On proof of possession by the accused of goods recently stolen, there is a presumption of fact against the accused and an onus is placed upon him to account satisfactorily for his possession.
Criminal Law — Receiving Stolen Property — Guilty Knowledge — Inference from Circumstances
Guilty knowledge in a charge of receiving stolen property may be inferred from circumstances attending the receiving.
Evidence — Receiving Stolen Property — False Explanation — Effect on Conviction
Where the prosecution establishes possession of recently stolen goods and the accused gives an explanation which is found to be false and unworthy of belief, the accused fails to discharge the onus to account satisfactorily for possession and may be convicted.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Penal Code s.295(1)
  • Coffee Industry Ordinance
  • Larceny Act 1861
  • Indian Penal Code s.411

Cases cited (6)

  • Regina v Pratt (176 E.R. 580)
  • R v Leone Sbarra (13 Cr. App. R. 188)
  • Rex v Kelson (3 Cr. App. R. 230)
  • R v Schama and R v Abramovitz (84 L.J. K.B. 396)
  • R v Poromeshur Aheer (23 W.R. 16)
  • Madeppa Thevan (1888 1 Weir 471)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mohamed (Cr. App No. 77-1938) [1938] EACA 199 (1 January 1938)
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.