Wakilii

Singh v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 283 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction in District Court of Chunya District, Tanganyika, following dismissal of appeal in High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Conviction and sentence 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

Held that a Government Assayer's certificate is admissible in evidence under section 12 of the Assayers Ordinance, subject to objection at the time of production. Section 154(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is merely an enabling provision and does not preclude other expert evidence. Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act is clear and mandatory — it leaves no discretion to compel a police officer to disclose the source of information about an offence. The trial court properly found conscious possession. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Conviction and sentence upheld

Facts

The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of 1.4 oz. of raw gold contrary to section 8 of the Gold Trading Ordinance. Police received information that the appellant was in unlawful possession of gold and would be leaving Saza Mine for Singida. Acting on this information, an Assistant Superintendent of Police went to the appellant's house and found him sitting in a truck. When called out and searched, a small quantity of ore in pebble form was found in the left breast pocket of his shirt. The appellant initially told police that a Greek had given it to him in exchange for five bags of maize flour. At trial, he claimed he was too drunk to know how the ore got into his pocket and suggested it had been planted by one Moloo Ladha. The trial magistrate found that the appellant put his hand over his pocket when he saw police approaching, struggled when police tried to search that pocket, and rejected the drunkenness defence. The ore was examined by a Regional Mines Officer and subsequently assayed by a Government Assayer who certified it contained 1.4 oz. of raw gold valued at Sh. 350. The appellant was convicted and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Issues

  1. Whether a Government Assayer's certificate of analysis is admissible in evidence to prove that ore found in the accused's possession was raw gold.
  2. Whether section 154(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that an assayer be a 'Government Analyst' as defined in that section for the certificate to be admissible.
  3. Whether section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the court to compel disclosure of the identity of a police informant when such disclosure is said to be necessary for the investigation of the truth.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant without finding that possession was coupled with animus possidendi.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Expert Evidence — Assayer's Certificate — Admissibility
Section 12 of the Assayers Ordinance provides that an assay certificate purporting to be signed by a Government Assayer shall be admissible in evidence without further proof in any court and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Such a certificate is admissible subject to objection raised at the time of production, and any objection to the opinion stated therein should be made at the time of production when, if necessary, the assayer can be called as a witness and examined or cross-examined.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Government Analyst — Section 154(4) Criminal Procedure Code
Section 154(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is merely an enabling section authorizing the reception in evidence of the report of a Government Analyst and dispensing with formal proof of the signature to such report. It does not preclude the prosecution or the defence from proving the nature of an exhibit by other expert evidence.
Evidence — Privilege — Disclosure of Informer's Identity — Section 125 Indian Evidence Act
Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no Magistrate or Police Officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence. This provision is clear and mandatory and leaves no discretion to the court to compel a police officer to disclose the source of information, even where disclosure is said to be necessary to show the innocence of the accused. The English practice and procedure on disclosure of informants does not override this specific statutory provision.
Criminal Law — Unlawful Possession — Animus Possidendi — Conscious Possession
A finding that an accused person put his hand over his pocket when he saw police approaching, struggled when police tried to search that pocket, and was not so drunk as to be unaware of what was in his possession, constitutes a finding of conscious possession or animus possidendi sufficient to support a conviction for unlawful possession.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Gold Trading Ordinance (Cap. 127 of the Laws of Tanganyika, 1947) s.8
  • Gold Trading Ordinance (Cap. 127 of the Laws of Tanganyika, 1947) s.14
  • Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 20 of the Laws of Tanganyika) s.154(4)
  • Indian Evidence Act s.125
  • Assayers Ordinance (Cap. 128 of the Laws of Tanganyika, 1947) s.12
  • Assayers Ordinance (Cap. 128 of the Laws of Tanganyika, 1947) s.2
  • Criminal Procedure Code of Tanganyika s.3
  • Criminal Procedure Code of Tanganyika s.247
  • Tanganyika Order in Council, 1920 s.17(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • McCulloch v Hannam [1951] 1 All ER 402
  • Marks v Beyfus (1890) 25 QBD 494
  • R v William Jones (1936) 21 Cr App R 27

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Singh v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1951) [1951] EACA 283 (1 January 1951)
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.