[1945] EACA 55
The court held that the existence of a judicial proceeding is a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 116 (1) (f) of the Penal Code. The prosecution failed to prove that a judicial proceeding was in existence at the time of the alleged offence. The omission to adduce such proof is fatal to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1945] EACA 55
- Parties
- Appellant: Shah Devraj Meghji; Appellant: Shah Kalidas Hirji; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1945 (Consolidated)
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- Bartley J, Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Attempt to Influence Witness, Judicial Proceedings Requirement, Penal Code Section 116, Proof of Essential Elements
- 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
Shah Devraj Meghji
Appellant
Shah Kalidas Hirji
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the existence of a judicial proceeding is a necessary ingredient for the offence under section 116 (1) (f) of the Penal Code.
- 2 Whether omission to prove the existence of a judicial proceeding is fatal to a conviction for attempting to wrongfully interfere with or influence a witness.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the existence of a judicial proceeding is a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 116 (1) (f) of the Penal Code. The prosecution failed to prove that a judicial proceeding was in existence at the time of the alleged offence. The omission to adduce such proof is fatal to the conviction, as the essential element of the offence was not established. The court rejected the Crown's argument that a prospective proceeding sufficed, relying on both the wording of section 116 and the English Common Law foundation of the provision. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences could not be sustained.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- Convictions and sentences quashed.
- Accused acquitted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CRIMINAL
#### Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., and BARTLEY, J.
#### REX. Respondent
$\mathbf{v}$
# (1) SHAH DEVRAJ MEGHJI, (2) SHAH KALIDAS HIRJI, Appellants (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2)
### Criminal Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1945 (Consolidated)
Criminal Law—Attempt wrongfully to interfere with or influence a witness in a judicial proceeding—S. $116$ (1) (f) Penal Code—Existence of judicial proceedings a necessary ingredient of the offence.
Held (6-4-45).—That the existence of a judicial proceeding is an essential ingredient of the offence of attempting wrongfully to interfere with or influence a witness in a judicial proceeding *contra* S. 116 (1) (f) Penal Code and that omission to adduce such proof was fatal to a conviction.
Burke for the Appellants.
Phillips, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—There is an insuperable obstacle to our upholding the decision in this case. For the unexplained reason the prosecutor omitted to lead evidence on an essential element of the offence in the absence of proof of which a conviction could not be had. That element was to prove that at the time the alleged offence took place there was in existence a judicial proceeding. That essential was not proved or attempted to be proved. It could have been proved by calling a court clerk to produce the case file, that is if a judicial proceeding was in existence on the afternoon of the 17th February, 1944, the date of the alleged offence for we cannot exclude the possibility of the omission being due to there being no judicial proceedings in existence at the critical time. It has been argued by learned Crown Counsel that this essential had not to be proved, that it was sufficient to prove that the offence charged of attempting wrongfully to interfere with or influence Kariuki as a witness in a prospective judicial proceeding was sufficient. On consideration we do not agree with that submission. A study of section 116 of the Penal Code which contains a category of offences relating to judicial proceedings $(a)$ to $(i)$ convinces us that a judicial proceeding must be proved to be in existence as a requisite to a conviction. We have most carefully examined the record to ascertain whether the evidence establishes the essential and are quite satisfied that it does not. Confirming our interpretation of section 116, it will be found by reference to Archbold, 31st Edition, 1198, that the English Common Law relating to interference with witnesses on which no doubt section 116 (1) $(f)$ is founded refers to witnesses in existing judicial proceedings.
The appeals must be allowed, the convictions and sentences quashed and the accused acquitted.