[1940] EACA 10
The court held that the appellant should have been convicted under section 271(b) of the Penal Code, which specifically addresses theft by a person entrusted with property, rather than under section 266. The court clarified that section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not limited to theft of money but extends...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1940] EACA 10
- Parties
- Appellant: John Mukása; Respondent: Rex
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1940
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction altered to section 271(b) Penal Code
- Judges
- Sheridan CJ, Webb CJ, Whitley CJ
- Legal Topics
- Theft by Servant, Entrustment of Property, Criminal Charge Drafting, Interpretation of Statutes
- 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
John Mukása
Appellant
Rex
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted under section 266 of the Penal Code or should have been convicted under section 271(b) for theft of entrusted property.
- 2 Whether section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits charging theft of non-monetary property by specifying a gross sum and date range without itemizing each theft.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant should have been convicted under section 271(b) of the Penal Code, which specifically addresses theft by a person entrusted with property, rather than under section 266. The court clarified that section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not limited to theft of money but extends to other forms of property, such as cattle, and permits the charge to specify a gross sum and date range without detailing each individual theft. The conviction was formally altered to reflect the correct statutory provision, but the appeal was dismissed as no point of law was raised and no appeal lay.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction altered to section 271(b) Penal Code
Orders
- Conviction formally altered to section 271(b) of the Penal Code.
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
## COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
### Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. (Kenya), WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda) and WEBB. C. J. (Tanganvika)
#### REX. Respondent
# JOHN MUKÁSA, Appellant Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1940
## (Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Uganda)
Uganda Criminal Procedure—Theft by servant or agent—Theft of cattle by person entrusted with their care—Uganda Penal Code, sections 266 and $271(b)$ — Charge—Meaning of gross sum in section 185, Uganda Criminal Procedure Code
Appellant was convicted by a subordinate court under section 266 of the Penal Code of the theft of a large number of catte between 27th March, 1939. and 29th August, 1939. These cattle had been entrusted to his care by the owners and this was averred in the charge. In the course of an appeal which was dismissed the High Court considered the question as to whether it was permissible to lay the charge for the total number of cattle stolen between those dates or whether it was necessary to set out each particular theft and its date. This point was based upon whether section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code referred only to moneys. Appellant further appealed.
- Section 185 provides: When a person is charged with any offence under sections 268, 269, 270 and 271 of the Penal Code it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed without specifying particular items or exact dates. - Section 271 of the Penal Code provides: If the thing stolen is property which has been entrusted to the offender either alone or jointly with any other person for him to retain in safe custody or to apply, pay, or deliver for any purpose or to any person the same or any part thereof or any proceeds thereof, the offender is liable to imprisonment for seven years. - Held $(6-2-40)$ .—(1) That the appellant ought to have been convicted of an offence under section 271(b) of the Penal Code rather than under section 266. Conviction altered accordingly.
(2) That the "the gross sum" in section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code is misleading in that the section is intended to include cases where the property stolen may not be money.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Phillips, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN).—This is a second appeal and no point of law is raised. No appeal lies. The appeal is dismissed.
We would observe that the use of the words "the gross sum" in section 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code is apt to cause some misunderstanding. The section is expressly intended to include cases where the property stolen may not be money, conceivably mail bags in this case under section 268, Penal Code, or cattle as in this case under section 271, Penal Code. So the use of the words "the gross sum" is apt to be misleading. In the present case conviction should have been under section $271(b)$ , Penal Code, and not section 266 and we formally alter the conviction accordingly.