%20(1).png)
Abdul s/o Salumu v. R. (PC) Crim. App. 746-M-66; 14/4/67; Mustafa, J.
Accused was convicted of burglary and stealing before a primary court. The evidence established his possession of stolen goods some twenty days after they had been taken, but failed to connect him with the original taking. The District Court held that while a conviction of burglary and theft was improper, accused could be convicted of receiving stolen goods under section 311(1) of the Penal Code.
Held: An accused ’s explanation of his possession of stolen goods need not be “reasonably be true ……”
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
.png)
%20(1).png&description=Abdul s/o Salumu v. R. (PC) Crim. App. 746-M-66; 14/4/67; Mustafa, J.){kind=link}
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.