Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Ladislaus s/o Lukasi v. R., Crim. App. 915-D-67, 11/1/68, Biron J.



Ladislaus s/o Lukasi v. R., Crim. App. 915-D-67, 11/1/68, Biron J.

Accused was convicted of stealing b servant [P.C. ss. 265,271]; since his employer was the TANU Youth league, he was sentenced under the Minimum Sentences Act. A check of accused ’s accounts by the Area Commissioner had revealed a shortage, which accused admitted was due to an appropriation of T.Y.L. money for his personal purposes. A similar statement was made to a police officer, and both statements were entered in evidence. Yet another witness confirmed and admission by the accused that he had taken the money for his personal use, but that he “was prepared to refund it.”

            Held: (1) Accused ’s intention to refund the money, if believed, does not alter the fact that “his taking constitutes theft as defined in section 258 of the Penal Code ….” (2) The testimony by the police officer as to accused ‘s admission, which constituted a confession, was inadmissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act of 1967. Nonetheless, the remaining evidence produced by the prosecution clearly established the accused ‘s guilt. Appeal rejected. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments