Rex v Puri (Cr. R. 8-1931.)
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 where police officers attempted to search a vehicle without a search warrant, they were not acting in the due execution of their duty. Accordingly, refusal to permit such a search did not constitute an offence under Penal Code s.231(b) of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The conviction was quashed.
Outcome
Accused's conviction quashed and fine refunded
Facts
Two police askaris on duty looking for illegally imported sugar stopped the accused's car and requested to search it. The accused refused permission to search, stating he had a valid sugar permit to import sugar into Machakos district. The accused immediately went to find the Assistant Inspector of Police to allow a proper search. The lower court convicted the accused under Penal Code s.231(b) for wilfully obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty and imposed a fine of 100 shillings or one month's hard labour in default. The Crown on revision did not support the conviction.
Issues
- Whether a police officer acting without a search warrant can be said to be acting in the due execution of his duty for purposes of Penal Code s.231(b).
Orders
- Conviction and sentence quashed.
- Fine to be refunded.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Penal Code s.231(b)
- Criminal Procedure Code s.60
- Criminal Procedure Code s.62
- Criminal Procedure Code s.116
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.