[1942] EACA 70
The court held that the term 'regimental charge' as used in regulation 15 (1) (a) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941, means in the charge of a military unit. The evidence established that the tyre and tube were military property and, whether or not they had been issued from a military store for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1942] EACA 70
- Parties
- Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Rajabali s/o Ibrahim
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1942
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_dismissed
- Judges
- Bartley J, Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Military Property Offences, Interpretation of Statutes, Defence Regulations, Regimental Charge Definition
- 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
Rex
Respondent
Rajabali s/o Ibrahim
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the tyre and tube were in 'regimental charge' as required by regulation 15 (1) (a) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941.
- 2 What is the correct interpretation of the term 'regimental charge' in the context of the regulation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the term 'regimental charge' as used in regulation 15 (1) (a) of the Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941, means in the charge of a military unit. The evidence established that the tyre and tube were military property and, whether or not they had been issued from a military store for use, they would be deemed to have been in military or regimental charge. The stores department qualifies as a military unit for this purpose. The court agreed with the magistrate's interpretation and found no merit in the appellant's argument that there was insufficient evidence of regimental charge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The accused will surrender to his bail.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
# APPELLATE CRIMINAL
### BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., AND BARTLEY, J.
### REX, Respondent
#### $\mathbf{v}$
# RAJABALI S/O IBRAHIM, Appellant
### Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1942
Detaining stores in regimental charge—Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941, Regulation 15 (1) (a)—Meaning of term "regimental charge".
The appellant was charged with detaining a motor car tyre and tube in regimental charge contrary to regulation 15 (1) (a) Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941. It was submitted that there was no evidence that the tyre and tube were ever in regimental charge.
Held (16-7-42).—That "Regimental Charge" means in charge of a military unit.
# Khanna for Appellant.
Spurling, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—"Regimental" is a military term and in the absence of any definition of the term in the local legislation it is correct in our opinion to turn for enlightenment to the Army Act and ascertain therefrom the sense in which the term is used there. That is exactly what the learned Magistrate did and we agree with him that "in regimental charge" means in charge of a military unit. The articles in question in this case a tyre and a tube were sufficiently proved by the evidence of Lieutenant Van Dyck to have been military property. Whether they were ever issued from a military store for use is to our mind a matter of indifference for in either case they would, be deemed to have been in military or regimental charge. The stores department is just as much a military unit as is for instance a battalion or any lesser unit of the King's African Rifles. With regard to the other aspects of the case it is unnecessary to say more than that we agree with the learned magistrate's findings thereon. The appeal is dismissed and the accused will surrender to his bail.