Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Anyandulile s/o Mwaikusa, Crim. Rev. 39-D-68, 22/5/68, Georges c. J.



R. v. Anyandulile s/o Mwaikusa, Crim. Rev. 39-D-68, 22/5/68, Georges c. J.

Accused was charged with housebreaking [P.C. 294(1)] but was convicted of malicious damage to property [P.C. s. 326(1)]. It was proved that he broke a padlock and entered the house, but the charge failed to specify the felony which he intended to commit within the house and the magistrate found that no such intent was proved.

            Held: There are no specific provisions empowering a court to convict under section 326(1) where a charge has been laid under section 294(1). “It cannot be said either that section 294(1) creates an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes the offence created under section 326(1).” Conviction quashed. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments