Angutuko v Uganda (Criminal Revision 39 of 1991) [1995] UGHC 57 (28 February 1995)

THU REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

ORDER:

IN HE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA. AT KAMPALA

CRIMINAL REVISION NO, 39 OF 1^93

ANGUTUKO HAWARD VRS. APPLICANT

UGANDA oocnooooooo OOOOOO39OO0''5ooOf ^> ² ' \* ⁰ • RESPONDENT BEFORE; ^PIE HON, MR, JUSTICE G0M, OlOLLO

This file was at the instance of the applicant/convict'^s father placed before me for a possible Revision order. According to the record of the proceedings before the trial Chief Magistrate of Arua and the subsequent correspondence from one Enirob, C, Albino, father of the convict, the accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty of theft of a bicycle contrary to sections 252 and 255 of the Penal Code Act. He was a first offender but was subsequently sentenced by the trial Magistrate to ¹⁸ months imprisonment. The trial Magistrate gave reasons for that sentence.

Subsequently, Enirobo C, Albino, the father of the convict wrote to the Chief Magistrate informing him that the convict was at the material time of the commission of the theft, mentally sick. He attached medical Form ¹¹¹ to substantiate his assertion. Then he requested that his son be handed back to him.

On receipt of that letter, the Chief Magistrate forwarded the relevant filo and the correspondence to this court for "necessary action". The Assistant Registrar (Crime) placed the file before me for "perusal and guidance".

Tho law governing Revision proceedings are contained in section 339 to 344 of tho Criminal Procedure Code. Section ³⁴¹ (5) particularly prohibits entertainment of a /revision proceedings at the instance of a party where an appeal lies but was not lodged by the would-be appellant. The sub-section reads thus,

"(5) whore an appeal lios from any finding, sentoneo or order and no appoal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of tho party who could have appealed".

I think tho above sub-section applies with equal force to the facts of this case\$ for if the accused was convicted when ho was mentally sick and consequently incapable of making his defence, that was a good ground for appeal. ^A proceeding by way of revision was not opened to him.

The procedure for dealing with such an accused person was provided for in section ¹¹¹ of tho Magistrate's Court Act 1970o But there was nothing on the record suggesting that the trial Magistrate had reason to boliovo that the accused was of unsound Mind and consequently incapable of making his defence. Tho conviction was proper as the plea was clearly unequivocal and the admitted facts constituted tho alleged offence.

For tho reasons given above, tho file is returned to tho Chief Magistrate Arua for retention.

G. M. 0IC3LL0

JUDG3 28/2/95

2