R. v. Muller Crim. Rev. 20-D-70; 12/6/70; Makame, Ag. J.

R. v. Muller Crim. Rev. 20-D-70; 12/6/70; Makame, Ag. J.

The accused and the complainant were at one time business associates. Later they disagreed, the complainant alleging that the accused was not giving him fair share of the proceeds from their milling machine. The complainant and his wife left the village and went to live elsewhere. On the 1^st of August, 1969 the accused reported to the police that his store had been broken into on the 31^st of July, and it is common ground that the store was indeed broken into. He said that a saw blade, drills and other carpentry tools were stolen. The police asked him if he suspected anyone, and the accused said it might be the complainant because they were on bad terms and also because he, the accused, had been informed that the complainant had been seen in the accused’s village around the material time. The police investigated and found a saw blade in the complainant’s workshop at Magamba. The complainant said the saw blade was indeed the accuseds, but that the accused himself had lent it to his niece, the complainant’s wife. The complainant was none-the less arrested and detained for five hours. The accused was later convicted of giving false information c/s 1222 of the Penal Code and because he was fined only Shs. 50/-he was unable to appeal. On revision:

            Held: (1) ….” (I)t is not an offence to give false information to a person employed in the public service even if such information leads to any of the consequences set out in sub-sections (a) and (b) of section 122 of the Penal Code: It is not enough that the information is false. It has to be established that the person who furnished the information knew or believed it to be false. That has not been done in the present case. The accused did not volunteer the information nor did he say that he was sure the complainant was the culprit. The police asked him if he suspected anyone and he said he suspected the complainant, and gave reasons which in the circumstances were not unreasonable”. (It has not been clearly established in the evidence that the information the accused gave to the police was false. The accused’s assertion was not challenged in cross examination ….. I hasten to add that I am not saying that the information the accused gave to the Police was true. What I am saying is that it was not satisfactorily proved to be false”. (3) Conviction quashed, sentence set aside.