[1931] EACA 16

[1931] EACA 16

The Court held that the withdrawal of a charge at the preliminary inquiry before the accused is called upon to make a defence does not bar the Attorney General from subsequently including that charge in the information filed for trial in the High Court. The Attorney General's discretion in framing charges is not limited to those upon which the accused was committed, as long as the evidence supports such charges. The requirements of section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding notice and disclosure of additional evidence were met by providing an abstract of the witness's evidence and naming the witness. The appellant did not request an adjournment to address any alleged short...

Citation
[1931] EACA 16
Parties
Appellant: D. S. Monesamy; Respondent: Rex
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1931
Case Number
Cr. App. 63/1931.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Judges
Barth, C.J (Kenya), Pickering, C.J. (Zanzibar), Thomas, J. (Kenya)
Legal Topics
Forgery, Uttering, Powers of Attorney General, Criminal Procedure, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Forgery Uttering Powers of Attorney General Criminal Procedure Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. S. Monesamy

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General can file an information containing a charge that was withdrawn at the preliminary inquiry before the accused was called upon to make a defence.
  2. 2 Whether the notice and disclosure requirements under section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code were satisfied regarding additional evidence and witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction was supported by the weight of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the withdrawal of a charge at the preliminary inquiry before the accused is called upon to make a defence does not bar the Attorney General from subsequently including that charge in the information filed for trial in the High Court. The Attorney General's discretion in framing charges is not limited to those upon which the accused was committed, as long as the evidence supports such charges. The requirements of section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding notice and disclosure of additional evidence were met by providing an abstract of the witness's evidence and naming the witness. The appellant did not request an adjournment to address any alleged short...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence of two years on each count, to run concurrently, are upheld.