[1940] EACA 68
The Supreme Court held that a conviction for receiving stolen property under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code requires proof that the accused received the property knowing or having reason to believe it was stolen. A plea of guilty by the thief does not constitute evidence of theft against the accused, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1940] EACA 68
- Parties
- Applicant: Rex; Respondent: Nyanye Woiaresia
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision Case No. 94 of 1941
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision
- Outcome
- conviction_and_sentence_set_aside
- Judges
- Bartley J, Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Receiving Stolen Property, Plea of Guilty, Proof of Theft, Charge Wording, Section 295 Penal Code
- 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
Applicant
Nyanye Woiaresia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a plea of guilty by the thief constitutes evidence of theft against the accused.
- 2 Whether the theft was sufficiently proved in the case.
- 3 Whether it is correct to charge a person with mere possession under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that a conviction for receiving stolen property under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code requires proof that the accused received the property knowing or having reason to believe it was stolen. A plea of guilty by the thief does not constitute evidence of theft against the accused, and the theft was not otherwise sufficiently proved. Furthermore, charging a person with mere possession of stolen property under section 295 (1) is incorrect; the charge must specify receiving with knowledge or reasonable belief of the property being stolen. As these requirements were not met, the conviction and sentence could not stand.
Court Disposition
conviction_and_sentence_set_aside
Orders
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
- The fine, if paid, is to be refunded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
# CRIMINAL REVISION
Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. and BARTLEY, J.
### REX, Prosecutor
υ
# NYANYE WOIARESIA. Accused
## Criminal Revision Case No. 94 of 1941
Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure-Charge of receiving-Plea of guilty by the thief—Correct wording of a charge under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code.
The accused was charged in the Resident Magistrate's Court at Eldoret with being in possession of a watch reasonably believed to have been stolen contra section 295 (1) of the Penal Code of Kenya.
Accused pleaded not guilty, but after hearing the evidence the magistrate found him guilty, and having duly entered a conviction sentenced him to a fine of Sh. 110 or three months imprisonment with hard labour in default.
The case came before the Supreme Court of Kenya for revision.
**Held** $(22-4-41)$ .--(1) That the plea of guilty by the thief was not evidence of the theft as against the accused.
(2) The theft was not otherwise sufficiently proved.
(3) It was incorrect to charge a person with mere possession on a charge under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code.
### Accused absent unrepresented.
# Spurling, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—While we are of the opinion that a conviction for receiving contrary to section 295 (1) of the Penal Code might properly lie in connexion with property found and fraudulently converted by a thief and passed to the receiver, vide Regina v. Harriet and Anthony Adams, 175 E. R. 637, yet in this case we consider that the conviction cannot stand, as a plea of guilty by the thief is no evidence of the theft as against the receiver and the necessary elements to constitute theft by finding were not proved in this case. Quite apart from this, it is not correct to charge a person with mere possession of stolen property on a charge under section 295 (1) of the Penal Code. The proper charge in this case would have been for receiving the watch knowing or having reason to believe it to have been feloniously stolen.
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, to be refunded.