Rex v Cronk (Cr. R. 64/1931.) [1931] EACA 32 (1 January 1931)

## CRIMINAL REVISION.

Before SIR JACOB BARTH, C. J.

## $REX$ (Original Complainant)

## R. CRONK (Original Accused).

## Cr. R. $64/1931$ .

Non-native Poll Tax Ordinance-Cap. 52-section 13-Production of receipt for payment of tax last payable.

*Held* $(21-7-31)$ :—That the words "tax last payable"; relate to tax for the current year.

Accused was charged and convicted under section 13 (2) and (3) of the Non-native Poll Tax Ordinance with refusing to $_{\rm turnish}$ certain information required by a collector $(R. M.)$ Nairobi Cr. Case 3285/31). He was sentenced to a fine of Sh. 20.

According to the record in the lower Court accused was asked by a collector to produce his tax receipt for 1930. $\mathbf{H}_{\mathbf{e}}$ declined to do so on the ground that he had previously exhibited. his 1930 receipt at the District Commissioner's Office.

In a subsequent case (R. M. Nairobi Cr. Case 3407/31) the Resident Magistrate held that the tax last payable refers to the tax for the current year and asked the Supreme Court, if his interpretation in the subsequent case was correct, to revise the sentence in the earlier case.

ORDER.—The accused was on 27th June, 1931, fined for breach of section 13 (2) and (3) of the Non-native Poll Tax Ordinance, in that he failed to produce his poll tax receipt for 1930 when called upon. In a subsequent case $\text{Rex } v$ . Flood, Criminal Case 3407 of 1931, the learned Magistrate has held that the receipt for the payment of the "tax last payable" can only refer to the tax for the current year, and has suggested. that the conviction in this case be revised.

I am in agreement with the learned Magistrate's construction of this phrase as used in section 13 of the Ordinance: as he very appositely observes if the "tax last payable" referred to the tax for the preceding year there would be no power to call for the receipt for the tax payable in the current year.

The conviction in this case is accordingly quashed and the fine if paid must be refunded. I may add the Crown has had an opportunity of supporting the conviction in this case and has declined.