%20(18).png)
Gaspare s/o Jovin v. R., Crim. App. 583-M-68, 30/10/68, Bramble J.
On 27th September, 1967 accused and several others were at a house where a watch was later discovered to be missing. On 7th March, 1968, the watch was found in accused ’s possession, and he was convicted of stealing c/s 265, Penal Code.
Held: (1) Accused ’s presence at the house where the watch was lost does not “point irresistibly to his stealing it at the particular time.” (2) Four months is too long a period to be considered “recent” in order to raise the presumption that the accused was the thief or the knowing receiver. “There is no general rule as to what time is close enough ….It is generally accepted that a period of two months …. Will be too long to raise the presumption in the case of articles that pass readily from hand to hand.” Conviction quashed.
%20(10).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(1).png)
%20(18).png&description= Gaspare s/o Jovin v. R., Crim. App. 583-M-68, 30/10/68, Bramble 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.