Wakilii

Rex v Salim (Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1947] EACA 17 · 1947 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing appeal against conviction
Decision
Conviction under s.316 Penal Code 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 held that under s.316 of the Penal Code, the test is whether there was reason for suspicion in all the circumstances, not whether the police officer actually had the precise suspicion in mind when stopping the vehicle. Once detention is lawfully effected under s.25, it is for the accused to give a satisfactory account of how he came by the goods, not for the prosecution to prove continuing suspicion at trial. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction under s.316 Penal Code upheld

Facts

A police officer stopped a lorry early one morning on a road where it should not have been. Upon examination, the lorry contained 26 gunny bags of unopened tea cartons, 25 four-gallon tins of simsim oil, and five gunny bags containing unopened boxes of 500 rounds each of Government ammunition. The appellant was one of the persons in the lorry when stopped. He was charged and convicted of conveying property reasonably suspected to have been stolen contrary to s.316 of the Penal Code. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya was dismissed, and he appealed again to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa.

Issues

  1. Whether proceedings lie under s.316 of the Penal Code when the police officer who stopped the lorry did not have the precise suspicion indicated in s.25 at the time of stopping.
  2. Whether it must be established at trial that the police still reasonably suspected the goods of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained at the date of trial.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Conveying Stolen Property — Test for Reasonable Suspicion under s.316 Penal Code
In deciding whether proceedings lie under s.316 of the Penal Code for conveying property reasonably suspected of having been stolen, the test is not whether the police officer who stopped the vehicle actually had in his mind at the time the precise suspicion indicated in s.25 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but whether there was in all the circumstances reason for such suspicion.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Accused's Duty to Account for Possession under s.316 Penal Code
On a charge under s.316 of the Penal Code, it is for the accused to give an account to the satisfaction of the Court of how he came by the goods, and not for the prosecution to prove at the trial that at the date of the trial the police still reasonably suspected the goods of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Police Powers — Exercise of Powers under s.25 Criminal Procedure Code
Where a police officer stops a vehicle and upon search discovers goods reasonably suspected of being stolen, and there was evidence on which the magistrate could reasonably conclude that at the time of stopping there was reason for suspicion, detention under s.25 of the Criminal Procedure Code is lawfully effected.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Penal Code s.316
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.25

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Salim (Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1946) [1947] EACA 17 (1 January 1947)
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.