Khan v. R. Crim. App. 132-D-71; 21/4/71; Biron J.

Khan v. R. Crim. App. 132-D-71; 21/4/71; Biron J.

The appellant was convicted of conveying property reasonably suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained c/s 312 of the Penal Code. the appellant was driving his motor vehicle when he was stopped by two Police Officers. A tape recorder of the type fitted in motor vehicles was found installed in the appellant’s vehicle. It was this tape recorder which former the subject mater of the charge.

            Held: [Referring to Kateba v. R. [1967] E. A. 215, 216] “The question that immediately poses itself is, can it be a said that the appellant was conveying the tape recorder or was in possession of it, such possession being ejusdem generris with conveying when the tape recorder was itself an accessory and therefore part of the vehicle, that is, the conveyance. Learned State Attorney conceded that was it a case of a wheel or some other mechanical part of the vehicle, then the appellant could certainly not be said to have been conveying such part, but, in the case of an accessory like a tape recorder, he was rather dubious as to the position.” (2) “I must confess that I know of no authority to the point but in all the circumstances I am not persuaded that the appellant could be said to have been conveying the tape recorder or that his possession of it at the material time as ejusdem generis with conveying.” (3) Conviction quashed and sentence set aside.