Shah Ali v. R. Crim. App. 461-D-68, 4/10/68, Biron J.

Shah Ali v. R. Crim. App. 461-D-68, 4/10/68, Biron J.

Accused was convicted of receiving stolen property c/s 311, Penal code, on the basis of a statement made to a police witness, and considerable other evidence. He was sentenced to 2 years and 24 strokes under the Minimum Sentences Act.

            Held: (1) The evidence of the police witness as to accused ’s statements to him was inadmissible because it amounted to a confession within the meaning of s. 27, Evidence Act, 1967. (2) “Even disregarding the inadmissible evidence in toto, the conviction for receiving is fully supported and justified  by the evidence. The admission of the inadmissible  evidence has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice ….” Conviction affirmed. (3) There was no evidence to indicate that accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen in the course of a burglary. However receiving property stolen in the commission of a scheduled offence under the Minimum Sentences Act in itself constitutes a scheduled offence, notwithstanding that the receiver neither knew nor had reason to believe that the goods were taken in the commission of a scheduled offence. (4) The lack of such knowledge does, however, constitute a special circumstance

Within the meaning of s. 5(2), Minimum Sentences Act and when combined with the fact that accused was a first offender and the amount involved did not exceed Shs. 100/-, allowed the Court to reduce sentence.