Wakilii

Rex v Mushhad (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1940] EACA 7 · 1940 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from High Court of Tanganyika conviction
Decision
Conviction and sentence 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

Where a person is charged with buying raw gold without a licence under the Gold Trading Ordinance, the onus of proof lies on the accused to show that he possessed a licence. The possession of a licence is a fact specially within the knowledge of the accused under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act. Alternatively, it is for the accused to prove he comes within the exception to the law by showing he had taken out a licence. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted in the High Court of Tanganyika for buying raw gold without being a licensed gold dealer, contrary to section 5(1) of the Gold Trading Ordinance. There was no evidence presented that the appellant lacked a licence, but the appellant gave evidence and at no time suggested he was a licensed dealer. It was not disputed that the appellant had bought raw gold. The appellant appealed the conviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the onus of proving possession of a licence to buy raw gold lies on the accused person charged with buying gold without a licence.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Burden of Proof — Facts Specially Within Knowledge of Accused
Where a person is charged with buying raw gold without a licence, the possession of a licence is a fact specially within the knowledge of the accused, and therefore the onus of proving possession of the licence lies on the accused under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Exceptions to General Law
Where a statute creates an offence subject to an exception requiring a licence, it is for the accused to prove that he comes within the exception by showing that he had taken out the required licence.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Gold Trading Ordinance Cap. 104 s.5(1)
  • Indian Evidence Act s.105

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Mushhad (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1939) [1940] EACA 7 (1 January 1940)
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.