[2011] KEHC 2693 (KLR)
The court found that the cheque in question was post-dated, as it was issued on 14th January 2011 but dated 14th February 2011. Section 316A(2) of the Penal Code clearly provides that the offence of issuing a bad cheque under section 316A(1) does not apply to post-dated cheques. Therefore, the charge sheet did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2693 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Mungai Mwangi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 22 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling
- Outcome
- charges rejected and accused discharged
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Bad Cheque Offences, Post Dated Cheques, Penal Code Section 316a, Criminal Procedure, Defective Charge Sheet
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Mungai Mwangi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether issuing a post-dated cheque constitutes an offence under section 316A(1) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether the charge sheet disclosed any offence known to law under the cited provision.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in commencing hearing on a defective charge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the cheque in question was post-dated, as it was issued on 14th January 2011 but dated 14th February 2011. Section 316A(2) of the Penal Code clearly provides that the offence of issuing a bad cheque under section 316A(1) does not apply to post-dated cheques. Therefore, the charge sheet did not disclose any offence known to law. The trial magistrate erred in commencing proceedings on a charge that was defective ab initio. Consequently, the High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to reject the charges and discharge the accused, as mandated by section 89(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
charges rejected and accused discharged
Orders
- The charges against the accused are rejected.
- The accused is discharged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 22 OF 2011
(Arising from Criminal Case No. 1046 of 2011 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa: I. Ruguru – DMII)
JAMES MUNGAI MWANGI …............................…………….….. APPLICANT
=VERSUS-
REPUBLIC ………………….…….............………….… RESPONDENT
RULING
By a letter dated 8th April 2011 Ndegwa Muthama Katisya Associates Advocates have sought that the High Court exercise its powers of review in CM CC 1046/2011 REPUBLIC –VS- JAMES MUNGAI MWANGI. In that case the accused is charged with ISSUING A BAD CHEQUE CONTRARY TO SECTION 316(A) (1) OF THE PENAL CODE. The particulars of the offence were as follows:
“On the 14th day of January 2011 at SUMMIT COVE LINES COMPANY at Kibarani area in Mombasa district within Coast Province, with intent to defraud or deceive issued a cheque No. 000028 dated 14th February 2011 for the amount of Kshs.20,000/- which was in favour of SUMMIT COVE LINES COMPANY knowing that your account No. 1209000134 at NIC bank Nkurumah road branch had no sufficient funds”
A careful look at these facts reveals that although the date of the offence is given as 14th January 2011 i.e. that is the date when the offending cheque was issued, the same facts clearly show that the cheque issued on 14th January 2011 was infact dated 14th February 2011 a month later making it what is known in common parlance as a post dated cheque. Post-dated cheques are not covered by S. 316A(1) of the Penal Code. S. 316A(2) clearly provides:
“(2)Subsection (1) (as does not apply with respect to a post-dated cheque.” [my own emphasis]
The charge sheet therefore discloses no offence known to law and ought to have been rejected by the trial court. The magistrate ought not to have commenced the hearing of this charge which was clearly defective in law. S. 316(2) makes it very clear that for one to issue a post-dated cheque which is consequently dishonoured does not constitute an offence known to law. In the circumstances the trial court ought to have rejected the charges. In line with S. 89(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code I do hereby reject these charges and discharge the accused thereof.
Dated this 20th day of May 2011.
M. ODERO
JUDGE