Wakilii

Rex v Singh and Another (C.A. 35-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 110 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction on coining-related charges
Decision
Appellant's conviction for possession of coining dies upheld; sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour affirmed

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

Held that save in exceptional cases, a conviction cannot be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Corroboration existed in the discovery of spurious coins in the appellant's motor car, discrepancies in evidence regarding car keys, and continued association with a co-accused. The articles found were dies bearing impressions of current coins, susceptible of no innocent employment. Once possession was established, conviction was inevitable absent proof of lawful authority or excuse. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appellant's conviction for possession of coining dies upheld; sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour affirmed

Facts

The appellant was tried with two others on four counts relating to coining offences. He was convicted on count 2 for having in his possession stamps and moulds adapted to make the resemblance of both sides of a coin, contrary to Penal Code s.338(3)(c). The principal evidence came from Bir Singh, who testified that the appellant deposited with him five stamps of the obverse of a shilling, six stamps of the reverse, and two bronze stamps. These exhibits were found in Bir Singh's house by Mr. Stewart on 28 December 1933. A charge was pending against Bir Singh for possession of these articles. Spurious coins that could have been made with the dies found in Bir Singh's house were discovered in the appellant's motor car. There was a discrepancy between the appellant's evidence and that of Ram Singh regarding the finding of car keys. The appellant maintained continued association with Ram Singh at Messrs. Hartz and Bell's and at Kisumu.

Issues

  1. Whether a conviction can be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.
  2. Whether there was material corroboration of the accomplice's evidence implicating the appellant.
  3. Whether the trial was vitiated by misjoinder of charges.
  4. Whether the admission of evidence relevant to co-accused prejudiced the appellant's trial.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Conviction affirmed.
  • Sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour affirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Corroboration Requirement
Save in exceptional cases, a conviction cannot be based upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The exception arises only when the circumstances of the case and the relation of the accomplice to the offence committed appear to justify the court in acting upon his evidence.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Nature of Corroboration Required
Corroboration of accomplice evidence must be evidence tending to show not only that the offence has been committed, but that the accused was implicated in it.
Criminal Procedure — Joinder of Charges — Effect of Misjoinder
Where articles in respect of which an accused is convicted are dies bearing impressions of current coins susceptible of no innocent employment, evidence relating to co-accused on other counts does not prejudice the accused such as to occasion a failure of justice, and any misjoinder does not vitiate the conviction.
Criminal Procedure — Objections to Information — Time for Taking
Every objection to any information for any formal defect on the face thereof must be taken immediately after the information has been read over to the accused person and not later.
Criminal Procedure — Appeal — Errors Not Occasioning Failure of Justice
No finding, sentence or order shall be reversed or altered on appeal on account of any error, omission or irregularity unless such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Penal Code of Kenya s.337
  • Penal Code of Kenya s.338(3)(c)
  • Penal Code of Kenya s.338(3)(d)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.132(d)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.234
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.259(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.262
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.367
  • Indian Evidence Act s.133
  • Indian Evidence Act s.114

Cases cited (17)

  • Haji Mohamed Saleh (Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1933)
  • Kichingeri and Others (3 E.A.L.R. 1)
  • R v Thompson [1914] 2 KB 99
  • Subramaniya Iyer v King Emperor (1901) 28 Indian Appeals 257
  • K Pillai v Emperor (26 Madras 125)
  • R v Jones (13 Cr App R 86)
  • Alimaddin Narkar v Emperor (52 Calcutta 253)
  • Choragudi Venkatadri v Emperor (33 Madras 502)
  • R v Baskerville (12 Cr App R 81)
  • R v Tate [1908] 2 KB 680
  • R v Jenkins (1 Cox 177)
  • R v Everest [1909] Cr App R 1930
  • Emperor v Jamaldi Fakir (51 Calcutta 160)
  • Queen Empress v Maganlal (14 Bombay 115)
  • Queen Empress v Chagan Dayaram (14 Bombay 331)
  • Deo Nandan Parshad v Emperor (33 Calcutta 649)
  • R v Wilkes and Edwards (7 C & P 272)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Singh and Another (C.A. 35-1934.) [1937] EACA 110 (1 January 1937)
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.