Dauda s/o Hamisi v. R. Crim. App. 340-M-66; 14/1/67; Platt, J.

Dauda s/o Hamisi v. R. Crim. App. 340-M-66; 14/1/67; Platt, J.

Accused was charged with making a false document (P.C. s. 335 (b) ). The charge was defective in that Section 335(b) merely defines the offense. The substantive section creating the offense and prescribing the punishment for forgery is section 337 of the Penal Code.

            Held: Under Section 346 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an irregularity in a charge is curable where the accused was not prejudiced by it. The irregularity does not prejudice the accused where, as here, “The particulars set out all the ingredients of a charge” Citing R. v. Indu Prasad Dave, Crim. Rev. No. 40 of 1963; and distinguishing Uganda v. Hadi Jamal (1964) E.A. 294.