Mohamed s/o Saidi v. R., Crim. Apps. 535, 505,562-M-67, 22/9/67, Cross J.

Mohamed s/o Saidi v. R., Crim. Apps. 535, 505,562-M-67, 22/9/67, Cross J.

The four accused were convicted of store breaking and stealing. [P.C. s. 296 (1).]There was admitted as against the firs accused his statement to a police officer that he had received flour from the thieves. As against the second accused evidence was admitted that tyres stolen from the store were found under his bed; these tyres were not among the stolen articles specified in the charge.

            Held: (1) The introduction of the first accused ’s statement to the police officer was contrary to section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1967. (2) The accused were charged with the composite crime of store breaking and stealing. Evidence, therefore, of the finding of any article in the second accused ’s possession which had been in the store before it was broken into, and was missing subsequent to the theft, is relevant to the charge and consequent to the theft, is relevant to the charge and consequently admissible whether the article was specifically mentioned in the charge or not.