[1940] EACA 20
The Court held that although the information was defective for failing to specify the particular felony intended, this omission was not fatal in the present case because the evidence made it clear to the accused that the alleged felony was theft of the tin box or its contents. The Court emphasized that prejudice to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1940] EACA 20
- Parties
- Appellant: Bakari bin Yusuf; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Webb CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson J
- Legal Topics
- Defective Information, Particulars of Offence, Prejudice to Accused
- 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
Bakari bin Yusuf
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to specify the particular felony intended in the information is a fatal defect.
- 2 Whether the accused was prejudiced by the omission in the information.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that although the information was defective for failing to specify the particular felony intended, this omission was not fatal in the present case because the evidence made it clear to the accused that the alleged felony was theft of the tin box or its contents. The Court emphasized that prejudice to the accused is the determining factor; if there is no reasonable possibility of prejudice, section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be applied to cure the defect. The Court also stressed the importance of providing full and precise particulars in charges but found no prejudice in this instance and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda), WEBB, C. J., and WILSON, J. (Tanganyika)
## REX, Respondent υ
## BAKARI BIN YUSUF, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940
(Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika)
Criminal Law-Entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein-Information should show the particular felony intended-Failure to disclose the particular felony intended not necessarily a fatal defect.
Held (29-7-40).—That an information of entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein should specify the particular felony intended but failure to do so will not be a fatal defect if the accused was not thereby prejudiced.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Smith, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by WEBB, C. J.).—The evidence in this case is very clear, but undoubtedly the information is defective in that it states only that the appellant entered a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein but omits to specify, as it ought, what was the particular felony intended. In some cases this might be a fatal defect, but in this particular case it must have been plain to the appellant from the evidence of the first witness that the suggestion was that he was attempting to steal the tin box or its contents. As was said in Balmakand Ram v. Ghansam Ram (22 Cal. at p. 405), "we must be guided, not by the undefined possibility of the accused having been prejudiced, but by some suggestion which a reasonable man can accept, that there has been prejudice to the accused". Where the Court feels that there is no possibility that the accused can have been prejudiced by some error or omission in the charge or information the provisions of section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code may properly be applied. But we cannot too strongly emphasize the importance in drawing up informations and charges of giving the accused full and precise particulars of the offence with which he is charged. Section 335 must not be regarded as a panacea capable of curing all deficiencies; it cannot be invoked where there seems to be a reasonable possibility that the accused may have been prejudiced. Having regard to the record of the appellant the sentence is not excessive.
The appeal is dismissed.