Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Musa s/o Mgojwa v. R., Crim. App. 870-D-67, 20/12/67, Biron J.



Musa s/o Mgojwa v. R., Crim. App. 870-D-67, 20/12/67, Biron J.

Accused was charged with stealing but convicted of conveying property reasonably suspected to have been stolen, contrary to Penal Code section 312. There was evidence that accused had sold two buckets and a cooking pot belonging to complainant, who identified the goods as those belonging to him. The District Magistrate held that accused could not be convicted of stealing since the heft had not been reported. The State Attorney submitted that he could not be convicted of theft because the property was not found in his possession.

            Held: (1) A conviction of conveying under Penal Code section 312 does not lie where it has been established that the property definitely has been stolen, and also that it has been stolen from an identified person. (2) The fact that the crime had not been reported does not preclude a conviction for stealing.(3) The fact that accused was not found in possession of the property also does not preclude a conviction for stealing Conviction for stealing substituted. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments