R. v. Nesto Kilabi, Crim. Rev. 27-A-69, 10/10/69, Platt J.

R. v. Nesto Kilabi, Crim. Rev. 27-A-69, 10/10/69, Platt J.

The accused was convicted of uttering counterfeit coin contrary to section 361(1) of the Penal Code and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The particulars of the charge were as follows: - “The accused did utter a counterfeit coin, knowing it to be a counterfeit; to wit he had uttered a one hundred shillings counterfeit note No. e 503215.

Held: (1) “A ‘counterfeit note’ is not a ‘counterfeit coin’. The learned Magistrate ….. bravely argued on a dictionary definition of coin, that a note might be included in that term. That cannot be so having in mind the definition of coin in section 353 of the Penal Code …. [Which] throughout refers to metal objects being adapted to resemble coin. It is quite clear that coin means exactly what is mean in ordinary language, throughout the Chapter relating to coin. The charge is therefore misconceived (2) “The forgery of a currency note, or purchase receipt or possession of such a note is provided for in section 338 and 348 of the Code respectively. Forgery of a currency note is punishable with life imprisonment; possession with 7 years’ imprisonment. The offence charged was uttering the false note. That is provided for under section 342 of the Code as follows: - “Any person who knowingly and fraudulently utters a false document is guilty of an offence of the same kind, and is liable to the same punishment, as if the had forged the thing in question.” Hence uttering the false not in this case attracted life imprisonment. The learned Magistrate would, however, in this particular case, have had power to deal with the charge (see the First Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code). But were as statutory provision has been made in the Criminal Procedure Code for alternative verdicts for lesser and some other offences, no alternative verdict has been provided in this case. (3) The accused should have been charged with uttering a false document under s. 342, Penal Code, which attracts a maximum penalty f life imprisonment. No provision has been made in the Criminal Procedure Code for alternative verdicts in this case. Moreover, ‘in general it is offensive to principle to substitute a charge carrying an entrance penalty for one with a relatively light penalty” the proceedings being too irregular to cure, the conviction is quashed.