Jackson James v. R., Crim. App. 310-D-67; 22/6/67; Georges, C.J.

Jackson James v. R., Crim. App. 310-D-67; 22/6/67; Georges, C.J.

Accused was convicted of possession of property suspected to have

Been stolen. (P.C. s.312). The facts stated were that when apprehended by the police he was in possession of a watch in suspicious circumstances. He was taken to the market place where he said he had picked up the watch, and a watch repairer produced a receipt identifying the owner of the watch. The owner was never traced. When at trial the charge was read to accused, he replied, “I picked it up in the market square.” This was recorded as a plea of guilty.

            Held: (1) (1) Section 312 of the Penal Code provides that any person who is charged in court with being in possession of property suspected to have been stolen “who shall not give an account to the satisfaction of such court of how he came by the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” A person is guilty of the offence only if he fails to give a satisfactory account to the court. Therefore, it would seem that he cannot plead guilty at the time the plea is taken because he has not at that time been given the opportunity to give such an account. In any event, on the facts of this  case, it is clear that accused ’s reply could not be held to be a plea of guilty. (2) A conviction cannot be maintained under section 312 if the articles in question can be identified as the property of any known person. If the owner is identified, it is no longer a question can be identified as the property of any known person. If the owner is identified, it is no longer a question of suspicion, and the charge should be laid under a section of the Penal Code dealing with stealing or possession or receiving stolen property. Citing R. v. Msengi s/o Abdallah (1952) 1T.L. R. (R) 107; R. v. Shabani Saidi, 1.T.L.R. (R) 77. (3) The Criminal Procedure Code does not permit a conviction for stealing when a charge is laid under section 312, although the reverse can be done.