R. v. Amiri s/o Rashidi, Crim. App. 234-D-68, 29/5/68, Georges C. J.

R. v. Amiri s/o Rashidi, Crim. App. 234-D-68, 29/5/68, Georges C. J.

Accused was convicted of selling native liquor without a permit [Local Liquor Ordinance, Cap. 77 ss. 32 51]. Some of his customers testified that he sold them some “pombe”; he himself testified that pombe was there in a barrel to be sold but denied that he had sold any of it. Accused contended that there was no certainty as to what was sold, since the charge sheen referred to “mbege”; that the items taken from the scene of the alleged crime were taken during an illegal search, and were therefore not admissible in evidence; and that the trial magistrate  had not directed himself that the witnesses were accomplices, whose testimony needed corroboration.

            Held: (1) The High Court takes judicial notice of the fact that “mbege” is pombe brewed from bananas. (2) Although there was no scientific evidence, and no opinion evidence as such the police constable and purchasers identified the substance as pombe, and the accused admitted that the substance in the barrel was pombe. The facts do not necessitate scientific or expert testimony as to the nature of the substance sold, and there was clear enough evidence of the sale itself. (3) It is “trite law” that the fact that a search, whether of premises or of the person, was unlawful, does not preclude the trial court from receiving articles found as a result of such search. (4) Although the witnesses were “accomplices” and the magistrate did not advert to the matter of corroboration, there was adequate corroboration of their testimony from the other facts in evidence. Appeal dismissed.