Wakilii

Rex v Salim (Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1946)

East African Court of Appeal · [1946] EACA 55 · 1946 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction under section 316 Penal Code for conveying suspected stolen property
Decision
Conviction under section 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

A police officer who stops a vehicle in suspicious circumstances at an unusual hour on a road where it should not be is properly exercising powers under section 25 Criminal Procedure Code, even if he has not formulated a specific suspicion as to what unlawful items the vehicle may contain. The power to stop, search and detain does not require prior knowledge of the specific contraband. On a charge under section 316 Penal Code, it is for the accused to give a satisfactory account of how he came by suspected stolen goods.

Outcome

Conviction under section 316 Penal Code upheld

Facts

At 3 a.m., a police officer stopped a lorry on Jethabhai Oil Mills Road because it was on a road where it should not have been at a peculiar time, arousing his suspicion. The appellant was on the lorry and fled when it was stopped but was arrested within hours. Upon searching the lorry, the officer found 26 gunny bags of unopened tea cartons, 25 four-gallon tins of simsim oil, and five gunny bags containing 5,000 rounds of Government .303 Mark VII rifle ammunition. The appellant was charged and convicted under section 316 Penal Code for being a person suspected of conveying stolen property. He appealed, arguing that the police officer had not properly exercised powers under section 25 Criminal Procedure Code because the officer admitted he had not suspected the specific contents before stopping the vehicle.

Issues

  1. Whether a police officer properly exercised powers under section 25 Criminal Procedure Code when stopping a vehicle based on general suspicion rather than specific knowledge of unlawful contents.
  2. Whether the accused was properly detained under section 25 Criminal Procedure Code when he fled the vehicle but was arrested within hours.
  3. Whether failure to locate the owner of property between arrest and trial negates a charge under section 316 Penal Code.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Police Powers — Stop and Search — Section 25 Criminal Procedure Code — Reasonable Suspicion
A police officer may properly exercise powers under section 25 Criminal Procedure Code to stop, search and detain a vehicle where the circumstances arouse reasonable suspicion that it may contain something unlawful, even if the officer has not formulated a specific suspicion as to what unlawful items the vehicle contains.
Police Powers — Stop and Search — Timing of Suspicion Formation
Where a police officer stops a vehicle based on suspicious circumstances and subsequently discovers goods reasonably suspected of being stolen, the officer need not release the vehicle and re-stop it to comply with section 25 Criminal Procedure Code; the initial stop based on general suspicion is sufficient to ground the exercise of the power to detain.
Burden of Proof — Section 316 Penal Code — Suspected Stolen Property
On a charge under section 316 Penal Code of being a person suspected of having or conveying stolen property, it is for the accused to give a satisfactory account of how he came by the goods; failure by police to locate the owner between arrest and trial does not negate the charge.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Criminal Procedure Code s.25
  • Penal Code s.316
  • 2 & 3 Vict. C. 47 s.66

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Salim (Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1946) [1946] EACA 55 (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.