Charles s/o Mumba v. R., Crim. App. 176-D-67; -/6/67; Saidi, J.

Charles s/o Mumba v. R., Crim. App. 176-D-67; -/6/67; Saidi, J.

Accused was convicted of possessing property suspected to have been stolen (P.C. s. 312). The goods were found in an unfinished building, but it was not known how the had come to that place. The circumstances of accused ’s arrest were not detailed by the High Court, but “he was not detained at first by a police officer.”

Held: Under the “very technical” section 312, “the accused must first be detained by a police officer exercising his powers under section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and …… at the time of such detention the accused person must be conveying the thing or things suspected of having been stolen …..” Possession of such goods in a building would be punishable under this section only if it occurred during “the course of a journey.” Citing Regina v. Msengi s/o Abdallah, 1 T.L.R. 107.

            The Court stated, obiter: (I)t is now high time to review the provisions of section 312 ……. And remove some of its strict technicalities. Its application if too limited to be of such use and its strict technicalities provide ample room for ostensible offenders to escape from the arms of the law, making the law entirely unintelligible to the unsophisticated public.