Case No.:

AC-CR.RE V.60. 1959

Court:

Court of Criminal Appeal

Issue No.:

1961

Principles

·  Criminal Law—Penal Code, SS. 352 and 353—Receiving stolen property—property obtained by cheating not “stolen property”

Accused received goods from A; knowing them to have been obtained by cheating. His conviction under Penal Code, S. 353. of receiving stolen goods was reversed, since property obtained by cheating is not within the definition of “stolen property” in Penal Code, s. 352.

Judgment

(CRIMINAL REVISION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. ADAM FADL EL MULA

 AND ANOTHER

AC-CR.RE V.60. 1959

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. March 27, 1959 :—This is a very interesting case. The facts are these: “A” a government lorry driver, forged a

document by which he obtained from Shell Company, six four-gallon tins of petrol. “B” assisted “A” in the disposal of three tins. “A” was convicted under Penal Code, s. 408 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and “B” should have been convicted of abetment of cheating since he knew, of the facts and yet assisted in the disposal of the petrol.

“C,” a trader and lorry owner, bought the three tins of petrol from “A” and “B,” knowing that neither of them had a title to the three tins and that the property was obtained through cheating C was convicted by the magistrate of receiving stolen property under Penal Code S 353 On appeal the Province Judge rightly refused to confirm the finding ,against C

There is no difficulty in convicting accused No 2 for assisting in the disposal of the three four-gallon tins of petrol which were obtained by forgery for he purpose of cheating. The forgery was only a means for cheatin,g and the accused should have been convicted under Penal Code, SS. 84/418 or 84/362.

I therefore direct that the finding against accused No. 2 be revised and the sentence imposed on him by the magistrate be restored.

The case against accused No. 3 is different. Penal Code, s. 352, defines stolen property as property obtained by theft, etc., but not by cheating.

I have consulted all the judges’ notes and eminent lawyers and we are all of the opinion that a person in the position of accused No.3 cannot be convicted of receiving stolen property. However, I have written to the Attorney-General with a view to amend the law so that person like accused No.3 , who knowingly purchases goods from a person who had no title to them, should not escape punishment.