Nathoo v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 6S of 1941) [1940] EACA 55 (1 January 1940)

# APPELLATE CRIMINAL

### Before SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J. and BARTLEY, J.

### **BHIMJI NATHOO, Appellant**

#### $\mathbf{v}$

# REX, Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1941

Criminal Law-Section 36 of the Game Ordinance (Ordinance 38 of 1937)-Illegal purchase of leopard skins-Evidence of accomplices-Necessity of corroboration in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The appellant was charged in the Second Class Magistrate's Court at Kitui with buying two leopard skins without any permit to do so. Appellant admitted having no permit but denied the purchase. On the evidence of the two alleged sellers he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Sh. 200 or one month's imprisonment with hard labour in default.

Appellant appealer from the conviction on the ground inter alia that the evidence of the alleged sellers was, at best, evidence of accomplices and, as such, required corroboration in the absence of special circumstances, and that the magistrate had failed to direct his attention to this point in convicting the accused.

$Heid$ (16-4-41).—(a) That the evidence of the alleged sellers was evidence of accomplizes and must be corroborated in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

(b) That the magistrate did not address his mind to this point.

(c) That the conviction was therefore bad in law and the sentence must be quashed and the fine, if paid, ordered to be refunded.

#### Modi for the Appellant.

## Spurling, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

JUDGMENT.—This appeal turns on a question of law. The witnesses to the commission of the offence were accomplices and the magistrate did not address his mind to the necessity (in the absence of exceptional circumstances) of having corroborative evidence and the skin alleged to have been sold was not found. The conviction and sentence are quashed and the fine, if paid, is directed to be refunded.