Mayagila s/o Shima v. R., Crim. App. 921-D-66; 17/3/67; Otto, J.

Mayagila s/o Shima v. R., Crim. App. 921-D-66; 17/3/67; Otto, J.

The accused was convicted of a corrupt transaction with an agent (Cap. 400, ss. 3(1), (4). The complaining witness had been charged with cattle theft and had properly been released at the instigation of a police inspector. Afterwards, the accused, who was a special constable, demanded payment of Shs. 100/- from the complainant, purportedly on behalf of the inspector. The complainant paid under threat of a new prosecution. There was no evidence that the inspector was involved.

Held: Although a crime was undoubtedly committed, the crime charged was not proven. At the time of the solicitation, nothing could be done or forborne to be done in relation to the principal’s affairs. The accused was acting entirely for himself and it is immaterial whether he could himself have caused the complainant to be re-arrested.