Wakilii

Rex v Shah and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 and 309 of 1948 consolidated)

East African Court of Appeal · [1948] EACA 67 · 1948 Appeals Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from conviction under Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945
Decision
Appellants' convictions quashed and sentences set aside

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

To convict under regulation 13(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945, the prosecution must prove not only that goods were stored in premises other than those on which the accused carries on business, but also that such premises were not in the occupation of or under the control of the accused for the purpose of the business. The charge was defective for failing to aver this essential element, and the trial magistrate failed to address whether the premises were under the appellants' control for business purposes.

Outcome

Appellants' convictions quashed and sentences set aside

Facts

The appellants were convicted of storing approximately 389 yards of Khaki Drill in a cupboard in a bedroom of premises at Shimanzi, Mombasa, without the written permission of the Price Controller. Gulabchand M. Shah was the sole proprietor of the business styled Gulabchand M. Shah, and Nemchand Motichand Shah was the person in charge of the premises. The bedroom where the goods were stored was under the same roof and in the same building as the shop and store where the business was carried on, but was described as being apart from the premises where business was carried on. The prosecution proceeded on the basis that the room was not part of the premises on which the appellants carried on business.

Issues

  1. Whether the charge was defective for failing to aver that the premises where goods were stored were not in the occupation of or under the control of the appellants for the purpose of their business.
  2. What elements must be proved to establish an offence under regulation 13(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate properly considered all necessary elements of the offence.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed.
  • Convictions quashed.
  • Sentences set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Elements of Offence — Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations — Storage of Goods
Before a conviction can be had under regulation 13(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945, it is not sufficient to prove that goods were stored in premises other than those on which the accused carries on business; it is also necessary to establish that such premises were not in the occupation of the accused or under his control for the purpose of his business.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defective Charge — Essential Averments
A charge under regulation 13(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 is defective if it does not aver that the premises on which the goods were found were not in the occupation of the accused or under his control for the purpose of business, as this is an essential element of the offence.
Statutory Interpretation — Regulatory Offences — Conjunctive Requirements
A finding that premises where goods were stored were not premises on which business was carried on is insufficient to maintain a conviction under regulation 13(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945, because such premises might nevertheless be in the occupation or under the control of the accused for the purpose of his business, in which case no offence would be committed.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Defence (Control of Prices) Regulations, 1945 regulation 13(1)
  • Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers No. 2) Order, 1945

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Shah and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 and 309 of 1948 consolidated) [1948] EACA 67 (1 January 1948)
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.