%20(1).png)
Lameck Bundala v. R., Crim. App. 707-M-67, 15/11/67, Cross J.
Accused was convicted of stealing by servant. The particulars of the offence stated that “The person charged …. Did steal cash Shs. 2,882/- the property of his employer ……” The only evidence of theft was that 8.5 cartons of tea were missing.
Held: In the absence of an amendment of the charge, the prosecution is bound by the particulars, and these particulars were not proved. Conviction quashed because of this matter and the general insufficiency of the evidence
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description=Lameck Bundala v. R., Crim. App. 707-M-67, 15/11/67, Cross 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.