R. v. Julias Crim. Case 133-Sumbawanga-1970; Inspection note; Onyiuke, J. (undated).

 R. v. Julias Crim. Case 133-Sumbawanga-1970; Inspection note; Onyiuke, J. (undated).

The accused in this case was charged with an offence c/s 312, P.C. The statement of offence was to wit, “Being in possession of property suspected to have been stolen or feloniously obtained c/s 312 of the Penal Code.” The particulars of offence were that he was found in possession

            Phillips radio which was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, to wit, the accused cannot give a satisfactory account to such possession. The charge sheet was signed by the Public Prosecutor as required by S. 88(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate who heard the case made the following order: “Section 312 clearly states that an accused person stopped under section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This has not been stated in the particulars of offence; therefore the charge is defective and is dismissed.”

            Held: (1) “It was held in Kiondo Hamisi vs. Republic (1963) E.A. 209 that a charge under S 312 of the Penal Code should allege that the accused was detained in exercise of the powers conferred by S.24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that at the time whom he was detained he was conveying or was in possession of a specified thing which might reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained. S. 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives the power to magistrate to reject a formal charge which does not disclose any offence but requires him to record his reasons for such order. Apparently the learned magistrate held the view that no offence under S. 312 of the Penal code was disclosed in the charge because of the failure to state an essential ingredient o the offence. He was, in my view, quite right to reject the charge. This would not however preclude the prosecutor from again presenting a proper charge under S. 312 of the Penal Code.” (2)”I may point out however, that S 312 of the Penal Code had been repealed and replaced by a new section by S.5 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Amendments ) Act 1971 which came into operation on the 29^th October 1971”. (3) Order; File returned to the District Court.