Ahmed. v. R. Crim. App. 443-D-71; 5/1/72; Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

 

Ahmed. v. R. Crim. App. 443-D-71; 5/1/72; Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted on his own plea of corrupt transaction c/s 3(2) of the Prevention of Conception Act, 1971. On appeal it was argued that the appellant’s plea of guilty was equivocal in that the trial court’s note on the record “charge read and explained” indicated that all constituent elements of the offence were not explained to the accused. The words “charge read and explained”; it was contended, meant no more than that the charge has been interpreted into the Kiswahili language to the accused person.

            Held: (1) “The record of the case discloses clearly that the charge on being read and explained to the appellant, the appellant said ‘it is true.’ In the first place, I find Counsel’s argument that the words ‘charge read and explained’ mean ‘charge interpreted into Kiswahili to the accused’ is a far-fetched and an unreasonable interpretation of a clear and unambiguous statement recorded by the trial Magistrate. What these words mean is simply that the charge as stated in the charge sheet was read to the accused and explained to him and explanation as I comprehend it must mean that each and every constituent element of the charge was explained and made comprehensible to the accused”. (2) Appeal dismissed.