R. v. Ernest Telenga, Crim. Rev. 20-M-67; 5/5/67; Platt, J.

R. v. Ernest Telenga, Crim. Rev. 20-M-67; 5/5/67; Platt, J.

Accused was charged under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, Cap. 400. The prosecution and defence both presented their cases at the trial but before judgment was entered the trial court found that it had no jurisdiction under section 14 of the Ordinance. That section provides that if a person is charged under section 6, there shall be no further proceedings without the written permission of the Attorney General except by way of remand. The court thereafter allowed the prosecutor’s request to withdraw the charge, under section 86(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides that if the withdrawal is made after the defence has been given, the accused shall be acquitted. In an attempt to avoid a bar to further proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecutions moved in the present action to have all proceedings after arraignment be set aside by way of revisional order.

            Held: (1) Section 329(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the court shall have the power to alter or reverse findings in the case of any order “other” than an order of acquittal.” Subsection (4) of that section provides, “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” Therefore, the court has no jurisdiction. (2) The Court stated, Obiter, that the Director might be able to state a case on the ground that he order of acquittal was without jurisdiction.