Salatiel v. R. Crim. App. 336-M-71; 12/11/71; El-Kindy, J.

Salatiel v. R. Crim. App. 336-M-71; 12/11/71; El-Kindy, J.

The appellant, Salatiel s/o Stephen, was charged with and convicted of failing to take precautions necessary to prevent arms and ammunition from falling into the hands of unauthorized persons contrary to section 29(1) and 31(1) (2) of the Arms and ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 223 and of giving false information to a person employed in public service contrary to section 122(b) of the Penal Code, Cap. 16. On the former count, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months, and on the latter, to imprisonment for here months. Both terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The court also ordered that the gun be forfeited to the Government. He appealed against convictions, sentences and order. The facts out of which the case arose are as follows: - The appellant, who owned a rifle, went hunting and met the complainant’s son who was also hunting. He later went to the house of the complainant. The evidence then conflicted: the appellant claimed that he went there for a rest, while the complainant stated that he found the appellant reducing his wife. However, the complainant seized the gun of the appellant which was some six paces away from the latter and took it to the police station later during the day; the appellant went to the station and reported that his fun was stolen by the complainant.

            Held: (1) “In respect of the second count, the complainant took the gun without the consent of the appellant, and therefore, in the absence of any explanation from the complainant as to why he was taking his gun, the appellant was entitled to believe hat the complainant was stealing his gun. If the complainant had told him why he was taking his gun, he would certainly have been aware that it was being taken as an exhibit for the alleged

charge of adultery and therefore, his belief would be unreasonable but his was not done. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be said that when the appellant reported, as alleged by the police officer (P. W. 2), he knew that what he was reporting was false. It has often been held by this court that it is an essential ingredient  of the offence that the charged person should be proved to have known that what he was reporting was false (see R. v. Muller 1970 H. C. D. 276).” (2) “The facts on the first count are in a border-line. It was alleged that the gun was only 6 paces from the appellant when the complainant picked it up and went away with it. The learned State Attorney argued that as it is not stated how near the gun should have been placed, it is difficult to say that in keeping it as he did the appellant failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent it from falling into the hands of the complainant, who was an unauthorised person. It was clear that the appellant was in the house of the complainant for a short time, whether for rest as he claimed or for adultery as alleged by the complainant. It appears that the appellant was on bed. If so, it would be manifestly unreasonable to expect him to keep this gun in bed with him. The gun was in a house, and he was present, half-asleep as he alleged. The arms and Ammunition (Safe Custody) Regulations, G, N. 75 of 1954, do not appear to cover the situation like this one. Although the appellant was awake and seeing when the complainant took away his gun, it was not the act he expected from the complainant so as to keep him on his guard. In the circumstances, the facts as elicited did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that what he did amounted to a failure to take precautions as required by section 29(1) of the Arms and ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 223.” (3) Conviction quashed.