Magazi v. R. Crim. App. 713-M-70; 9/8/71; Jonathan Ag. J.

Magazi v. R. Crim. App. 713-M-70; 9/8/71; Jonathan Ag. J.

The appellant was a revenue collector employed by a District Council. One of his duties was to receive local rate from taxpayers in the area and to remit the money collected to the Council. For this purpose he was issued with receipt books, all for 1969 local rate. Each receipt had a space for inserting the receipt numbers on which local rate for the previous two years had been paid. On a number of occasions the appellant collected sums from taxpayers for both 1968 and 1969. He issued receipts inserting a receipt number in respect of 1969. He also inserted on

the receipts, a receipt number for 1968 which was intended to give the impression to the authorities that the tax for 1968 had been collected and handed in some time before and receipts had been issued. The receipt numbers for 1968 were false in that the receipts corresponding to those numbers had been issued to persons other that the complainants. He pocketed the money for 1968 tax. He was found guilty on 7 counts of forgery c/ss 333 and 337 of the Penal Code & 7 counts of stealing by servant c/ss 271 and 265 and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 6 months 2 years respectively together with the mandatory 24 strokes.

            Held: “Republic submitted that the evidence did not support the charges of forgery. I respectfully agree; the entry of false receipt Nos. did not by itself make the receipts false within the definitions in sections 333-336 of the Penal code. He might more appropriately have been charged with fraudulent false accounting. This is not a minor offence to forgery and I cannot, therefore, agree with the Republic’s further submission that section 181 of the criminal Procedure Code could have been applied so as to find the appellant not guilty of forgery but guilty of fraudulent false accounting. Accordingly the convictions on the counts of forgery are quashed and the sentences thereon set aside. Those on the counts of stealing are upheld.”