%20(1).png)
Mohamed s/o Omar Shirazy v. R., Crim. App. 61-Z-65, 14/8/65, Saidi Ag. C.J.
The accused was seen “in the compound of the house of the complainant at about 9.00 A.M; knocking at he back door while buttoning his trousers. He had evidently “broken that he had been too drunk to know what he was doing, but was convicted of attempted house breading with intent to steal. [See Penal Decree, Cap. 13, ss. 352(1), 267(a).]
Held: The evidence supports a conviction of accused “as a rogue and vagabond under section 165(d)” of the Penal Decree, rather than the conviction recorded by the Resident Magistrate. Conviction substituted accordingly, under section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Decree. Cap. 14.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description=Mohamed s/o Omar Shirazy v. R., Crim. App. 61-Z-65, 14/8/65, Saidi Ag. C.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.