Mchota v. R. Crim. App. 561-D-70; 13/1/71; Biron J.

 

Mchota v. R. Crim. App. 561-D-70; 13/1/71; Biron J.

The appellant was convicted on ten counts of stealing postal matter. It was alleged that the appellant, being the postal officer in charge of incoming mail, received certain registered letters and it was his duty to enter receipt on some forms and dispatch those letters. The letters which the appellant is alleged to have stolen.

Could not be traced and the appellant could not account for their disappearance. The trial magistrate was satisfied that the letters had been received by the appellant and convicted him as charged. On appeal, the High Court observed that the case against the appellant was strong and reviewed its appellate rule.

            Held: (1) “The attitude to be adopted by this Court on first appeal was laid down by the Court of Appeal for East Africa in the case of Dinkerrai Ramkrishan Pandya v. R. (1957) E. A. 336, where from it is sufficient to quote from the judgment at page 337, wherein the Court upheld the submission of counsel for the appellant:- “that on the first appeal the appellant was entitled to have the appellate court’s own decision thereon;” [And see also In the Glannibanta (1876) 1 P. D. 283; Coghlan v. Cunberland (1998)1 Ch. 704 and Scott v. Musial [1959]2 Q. B. 429 to the effect that on appeal from a judge sitting alone is by way of rehearing’, (2) on an evaluation of evidence before me “I cannot find it established that although the appellant did receive the genera mail bag which, according to the evidence contained the registered letters, and the same applies to the registered letters received from Lituhi: Although some of these registered letters contained cheques and money orders none of them has apparently been cashed, and beyond the fact that the appellant actually received the ordinary mail bags there is no more incriminating evidence against him to connect him with the disappearance of these letters.” (3) Appeal allowed.