Nanyalika v. R. Crim. App. 149, 150 &152- D – 71; 23/6/71; Biron J.

Nanyalika v. R. Crim. App. 149, 150 &152- D – 71; 23/6/71; Biron J.

The appellant was convicted on three charges of (a) burglary (b) entering a dwelling house with intent to steal and stealing wherefrom and (c) entering and stealing. The appellant made statements to a police officer leading to the discovery of several stolen articles.

Held: (1) “As the cases were all tried separately, they cannot be together as they are all founded on much the same facts and are all part of a series of offences of the same character. They could, and should therefore have all been tried together…. Section 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.” (2) “The confession to the police officer is naturally inadmissible as laid down in sections 27 and 28 of the Evidence Act 1967. However, the evidence that the appellant showed the police the spot where the complainant’s stolen box was recovered, and also hi leading the police to the laundryman from whom the complainant’s stolen shirt was recovered, is admissible and fully justified those convictions.” (3) “…….. The evidence as to the appellant leading the police to the house of the complainant whereby, the police first

Discovered that it had been entered and the sandals stolen wherefrom is admissible against the appellant as provided for in section 31 of the Evidence Act 1967 [Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. Emperor. (1947) A. I. R. followed.]. (4) “In another [case] the appellant had denied them [previous convictions] and the court found them proved by the production by the prosecutor of the formal record of his previous convictions. In this respect it is pointed out for the benefit of the magistrate, that this does not constitute proper proof of previous convictions. The procedure for proving previous convictions is laid down in section 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code …….subsection (2).” (5) Appeals dismissed.