Edward Opiyo s/o Auguro v. R., Crim. App. 893-M-67, 5/11/67, Mustafa J.
Accused was convicted on two counts of obtaining money by false pretences. The first count alleged that he had taken money “with intent to defraud” on a promise to “forbear the arresting” of a certain person and to “stand and refuse removal” of that person for “detention as a cattle thief following the President’s order of January, 1967.” The second count alleged a promise to “forbear the support of returning” another person “who had been sent in detention following the President’s order of January 1967.” The evidence on the first count revealed a promise to be a witness for the named person against those who were charging him with cattle theft.
Held: (1) As to the second count, the generality of the particulars and the absence of the words “with intent to defraud” are fatal to the conviction, since the accused may not have understood the charge against him. “The false pretence must be set out in the charge with sufficient certainty.” (2) The difference between the false pretence alleged in the first count and that revealed by the evidence is fatal to the conviction on that count. Convictions quashed.
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.