%20(1).png)
Salum Haruna v. R., Crim. App. 773-M-67, 15/11/67, Cross J.
Accused was convicted of possession of bhang. [Cultivation of Noxious Plants (Prohibition) Ordinance, s. 2(b).] The only substantial evidence was that of a police officer who testified that “I found one piece of rolled cigarette of bhang. I know bhang.”
Held: “(I)t would be most unsafe to base a conviction on the bald evidence of a police constable that he knows bhang without any inquiry as to how he acquired his knowledge.” Conviction quashed.
%20(10).png)
.png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png&description=Salum Haruna v. R., Crim. App. 773-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.