%20(1).png)
Andreas s/o Manabe v. R., Crim. App. 482-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn J.
Accused was charged with receiving stolen property under section 311(1) of the Penal Code but was convicted of retaining stolen property under that same section. He argued that the procedure was improper, citing Harji Kuverji Patel v. R., 22 E. A. C. A. 336, a 1954 criminal appeal.
Held: Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1960, specifically empowers the court to convict of an offence of “retaining” where “receiving” is charged and vice versa.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
.png)
%20(1).png&description= Andreas s/o Manabe v. R., Crim. App. 482-D-67, -/8/67, Hamlyn 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.