Wakilii

Rex v Monsesamy (Cr. App. 63-1931.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1931] EACA 16 · 1931 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for forgery in the High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Appellant's conviction for forgery upheld and sentence of two years imprisonment confirmed

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 withdrawal of a charge at preliminary inquiry before the accused enters a defence does not bar subsequent information on that charge. The Attorney General's discretion in framing charges against a committed person is not fettered by the charges on which committal occurred. The Attorney General may properly include in the information charges based on evidence adduced at the preliminary inquiry, even if those specific charges were withdrawn. Notice requirements under section 226 for additional evidence were satisfied where reasonable notice was given. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for forgery upheld and sentence of two years imprisonment confirmed

Facts

The appellant was originally charged before a Magistrate with two separate offences of forgery and uttering. The charge of forgery was withdrawn and the accused was discharged on that count. Evidence on the uttering charge was heard and the accused was committed for trial. At trial in the High Court, the Attorney General's information contained two counts: forgery and uttering. The accused objected that the Crown could not frame a charge on a count which had been withdrawn by the Magistrate and on which he had not been committed. The objection was overruled. The Attorney General gave notice of intention to adduce additional evidence at trial, providing the witness name and an abstract of evidence. The accused was convicted of forgery and sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently.

Issues

  1. Whether the Attorney General could add a count of forgery to the information after the accused had been discharged on that charge at the preliminary inquiry.
  2. Whether the notice given under section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code for additional evidence was sufficient.
  3. Whether the conviction was supported by the weight of evidence.
  4. Whether the sentence of two years imprisonment was excessive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction for forgery upheld.
  • Sentence of two years imprisonment on each count (to run concurrently) upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Preliminary Inquiry — Effect of Withdrawal of Charge Before Defence Called
The withdrawal of a charge at the preliminary inquiry before the accused is called upon to enter upon his defence does not operate as a bar to subsequent proceedings on that charge.
Criminal Procedure — Attorney General's Discretion — Framing of Information After Committal
The Attorney General's discretion as to the information to be drawn against a committed person is not fettered by the charges on which the accused was committed. The Attorney General may frame charges from the evidence adduced before the Magistrate and is not limited to repeating the charge upon which the accused was committed.
Criminal Procedure — Additional Evidence — Notice Requirements Under Section 226
Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that reasonable notice be given when the Attorney General intends to adduce additional evidence at trial. The section requires notice to be given but does not specify what period of notice is required. An abstract or precis of the proposed evidence, rather than a verbatim statement, is sufficient compliance with the requirement to supply a copy of the evidence.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.226(b)
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.224
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.228
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.235
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.85
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.235(3)
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.250

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Monsesamy (Cr. App. 63-1931.) [1931] EACA 16 (1 January 1931)
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.