Rex v Ibrahim (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1942) [1942] EACA 70 (1 January 1942)

# APPELLATE CRIMINAL

### BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., AND BARTLEY, J.

### REX, Respondent

#### $\mathbf{v}$

# RAJABALI S/O IBRAHIM, Appellant

### Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1942

Detaining stores in regimental charge—Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941, Regulation 15 (1) (a)—Meaning of term "regimental charge".

The appellant was charged with detaining a motor car tyre and tube in regimental charge contrary to regulation 15 (1) (a) Defence (His Majesty's Forces) Regulations, 1941. It was submitted that there was no evidence that the tyre and tube were ever in regimental charge.

Held (16-7-42).—That "Regimental Charge" means in charge of a military unit.

# Khanna for Appellant.

Spurling, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

JUDGMENT.—"Regimental" is a military term and in the absence of any definition of the term in the local legislation it is correct in our opinion to turn for enlightenment to the Army Act and ascertain therefrom the sense in which the term is used there. That is exactly what the learned Magistrate did and we agree with him that "in regimental charge" means in charge of a military unit. The articles in question in this case a tyre and a tube were sufficiently proved by the evidence of Lieutenant Van Dyck to have been military property. Whether they were ever issued from a military store for use is to our mind a matter of indifference for in either case they would, be deemed to have been in military or regimental charge. The stores department is just as much a military unit as is for instance a battalion or any lesser unit of the King's African Rifles. With regard to the other aspects of the case it is unnecessary to say more than that we agree with the learned magistrate's findings thereon. The appeal is dismissed and the accused will surrender to his bail.