Wakilii

Rex v Patel and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 210 and 211 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 50 · 1946 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions in the High Court of Tanganyika for demanding money with menaces and theft
Decision
Both appellants' convictions upheld; second appellant's sentence structure varied so that sentences on related counts run concurrently rather than consecutively

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 held that selecting separate assessors for each co-accused at a joint trial was irregular but not fatal where the minimum number of assessors remained. An unequivocal guilty plea cannot be retracted after sentence unless the charge disclosed no offence. The evidence showed the second appellant was particeps criminis in all offences. Sentences on counts involving the same transaction should run concurrently. Appeals dismissed; second appellant's sentences varied to run concurrently for related counts.

Outcome

Both appellants' convictions upheld; second appellant's sentence structure varied so that sentences on related counts run concurrently rather than consecutively

Facts

The two appellants were jointly charged with demanding money with menaces from two complainants and with theft. During trial, the first appellant pleaded guilty and was removed from the dock. The evidence showed that the appellants told the complainants that diamonds had been planted in their premises by police and demanded substantial sums to prevent prosecution. The second appellant was introduced as a member of the C.I.D. One complainant paid Sh. 850 in the presence of both appellants, and later paid Sh. 140 to the second appellant, who returned Sh. 5. The second appellant searched one complainant's house and produced stones he claimed were diamonds. Both were convicted and sentenced. The first appellant sought to retract his guilty plea on appeal. The second appellant argued he had no involvement and blamed his co-accused.

Issues

  1. Whether the procedure of selecting separate sets of assessors for co-accused at a joint trial was lawful.
  2. Whether the discharge of two assessors during trial constituted a fatal irregularity rendering the proceedings a nullity.
  3. Whether an accused person who has unequivocally pleaded guilty and been sentenced can subsequently retract that plea.
  4. Whether the evidence established that the second appellant was particeps criminis in the offences of demanding money with menaces and theft.
  5. Whether sentences on multiple counts arising from the same transaction should run concurrently or consecutively.

Orders

  • Appeal of first appellant dismissed.
  • Appeal of second appellant dismissed.
  • Sentences on second appellant varied: sentences on first and second counts to run concurrently.
  • Sentence on third count to run consecutively to sentences on first and second counts.
  • Sentences on first appellant to stand.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — Trial with Assessors — Selection of Separate Assessors for Co-Accused
There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code to sanction a procedure whereby at a single trial one set of assessors gives their opinions as to one accused and another set of assessors gives their opinion as to a co-accused; each assessor must give an opinion on each accused.
Criminal Procedure — Irregularities — Discharge of Assessors During Trial — Section 346 CPC
The discharge of two assessors during trial constitutes an irregularity but is curable under section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code where it does not occasion a miscarriage of justice and the trial continues with the minimum number of assessors prescribed by law.
Criminal Procedure — Plea of Guilty — Retraction After Sentence
When once sentence has been passed upon a person who has unequivocally pleaded guilty, he cannot afterwards be allowed to retract that plea unless he pleaded guilty to a charge which in fact disclosed no offence.
Criminal Law — Demanding Money with Menaces — Elements of Offence — Section 292 Penal Code
To establish the offence of demanding money with menaces contrary to section 292 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused demanded a valuable thing by menaces or force with intent to steal; a demand of money with intent to steal, if successful, must amount to stealing.
Criminal Law — Menaces — Definition and Application
The term 'menaces' is not susceptible to exhaustive definition; when there is evidence of a threat calculated to operate upon the mind of a person of ordinarily firm mind, it is for the assessors to determine whether the conduct brings the case within the section; a threat to injure property may be more serious than a threat of physical violence depending on circumstances.
Criminal Procedure — Sentencing — Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences
The practice in cases where a person has been charged with and convicted on two counts involving the same transaction is to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently.
Evidence — Fresh Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
The production of fresh evidence at the hearing of an appeal is not a matter of right but is granted only in exceptional circumstances; an applicant must disclose the nature of the evidence and give sufficient reason why it was not called at trial.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Penal Code (Tanganyika) s.265
  • Penal Code (Tanganyika) s.292
  • Penal Code (Tanganyika) s.22
  • Penal Code (Tanganyika) s.258(1)
  • Penal Code (Tanganyika) s.258(2)
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.248
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.270
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Tanganyika) s.346
  • Diamond Industry Protection Ordinance 1928 s.3

Cases cited (18)

  • Ramakrishna Reddie v Emperor (1903) 26 Mad. 598
  • Subrahmanta Ayer v Emperor (1901) 25 Mad. 61
  • Rex v Ndigipe (1939) 6 E.A.C.A. 118
  • Kapoor Chand v Suraj Prasad 55 All. 301
  • Rex v Riley (1896) 1 Q.B. 309
  • Rex v Sell (1840) 9 C. & P. 346
  • Rex v Plummer (1902) 2 K.B. 330
  • Rex v Brown (1890) 24 Q.B.D. 357
  • Rex v Walton (1863) 169 E.R. 1403
  • Rex v Studer (1915) 11 Cr. App. R. 307
  • Rex v Boyle (1914) 10 Cr. App. R. 191
  • Rex v McGrath (1869) 1 C.C.R. 205
  • Rex v Robinson (1864) 169 E.R. 1482
  • Rex v Jefferson (1908) 1 Cr. App. R. 95
  • Rex v Martin (1908) 1 Cr. App. R. 33
  • Rex v Katambo (1938) 5 E.A.C.A. 141
  • Rex v Abyasali Kabula (1935) 3 E.A.C.A. 42
  • Rex v Sowedi Mukasa (Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1945)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Patel and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 210 and 211 of 1946) [1946] EACA 50 (1 January 1946)
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.