Share
Parmar v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1956) [1956] EACA 23 (1 January 1956)
- Citation
- [1956] EACA 23
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Rudd J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1956
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Rudd J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1956
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that although the police officers may have been justified in entering the shop to investigate a suspected offence under the Shop Hours Ordinance, they lacked the requisite authorization from an officer in charge of a police station as required by section 15(2) of the Ordinance. Once the appellant, as the shop owner, requested them to leave, their continued presence rendered them trespassers. Consequently, the sergeant was not acting in the execution of his duty at the time he was pushed out of the shop. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 248(b) of the Penal Code.
Court disposition
appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
Narshi Valji Parmar
Appellant Counsel: NowrojeeThe Queen
Respondent Counsel: Todd03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the police officers were acting in the execution of their duty when they remained on the shop premises after being asked to leave by the owner.
- 02
Whether the lack of requisite authorization under section 15(2) of the Shop Hours Ordinance rendered the police officers trespassers.
- 03
Whether the appellant could be convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 248(b) of the Penal Code.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the police officers, lacking the specific authorization required by section 15(2) of the Shop Hours Ordinance, became trespassers once asked to leave the shop. Therefore, any act to remove them could not constitute obstruction of a police officer in the execution of his duty.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the police officers were lawfully performing their duty by investigating a suspected offence under the Shop Hours Ordinance and were justified in remaining on the premises to complete their enquiries.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Shop Hours Ordinance, section 15(2)
A police officer must have specific statutory authority to remain on private premises if requested to leave, otherwise he becomes a trespasser.
- 02
Penal Code, section 248(b)
Obstruction of a police officer in the execution of his duty requires that the officer is lawfully acting within the scope of his duty at the material time.
- 03
Davis v. Lisle, (1936) 2 K.B. 434
Where police lack statutory authority to remain after being asked to leave, they are not acting in the execution of their duty.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that although the police officers may have been justified in entering the shop to investigate a suspected offence under the Shop Hours Ordinance, they lacked the requisite authorization from an officer in charge of a police station as required by section 15(2) of the Ordinance. Once the appellant, as the shop owner, requested them to leave, their continued presence rendered them trespassers. Consequently, the sergeant was not acting in the execution of his duty at the time he was pushed out of the shop. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 248(b) of the Penal Code.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the police were not wrong in entering the shop initially, but their right to remain was conditional upon proper authorization.
- The absence of evidence of authorization was fatal to the prosecution's case.
Court disposition
appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside
- The appeal is allowed.
- The conviction and sentence are set aside.
Source and reliance status
East African Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
East African Court of Appeal
Judgment
APPELLATE CRIMINAL
Before RUDD, J.
NARSHI VALJI PARMAR, Appellant
THE QUEEN, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1956
Criminal law-Police-Enquiry into suspected offence-Right to enter and to remain on private shop premises—Assault and obstruction—Whether in execution of duty—Penal Code, section 248 (b)—Whether authority to remain -Shop Hours Ordinance, section 15 (2).
Two police officers, one a sergeant, believed that offence against the Shop Hours Ordinance, Cap. 114, had been committed in a shop in the Machakos District. They entered the shop and began to make enquiries. The owner of the shop objected to the presence of the police officers but the sergeant refused to leave until his enquiries were completed, whereupon the shopkeeper pushed him out of the shop. The shopkeeper was charged with the offence of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty contra section 248 (b) of the Penal Code and convicted. He appealed.
Held (18-8-56).—Even if the police officers were not wrong in entering the shop to make equiries, they became trespassers after the appellant had requested them to leave the<br>premises, because they had not the requisite authority from an officer in charge of a<br>police station required by section 15 (2) of the S sergeant, when assaulted, was, therefore, not acting in the execution of his duty, with the result that the appellant could not be convicted of obstructing him in the execution of his duty.
Cases referred to: Davis v. Lisle, (1936) 2 K. B.
434.
Nowrojee for the appellant.
Todd, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT.—The facts in this case are that two police officers believed that an offence against the Shop Hours Ordinance occurred and had taken place in a shop in Machakos. They entered the shop and began to make enquiries questioning an attendant and the alleged customer. While this was going on the accused who was the owner of the shop came there and objected to the presence of the police officers, a sergeant and a constable, in the shop. The sergeant refused to leave till his enquiries were completed and the accused then pushed him out of the shop. The accused was on these facts convicted of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty contra section 248 (b) of the Penal Code by pushing him outside the shop. Section 15 of the Shop Hours Ordinance provides the powers of the police; subsection puts a duty on the police to investigate and prosecute all offences under the Ordinance and subsection 2 gives a power of entry to any shop in any township area to which any police officer or constable "thereto authorized by any officer in charge of a police" station".
There was no evidence of any such authorization in this case. In fact the evidence suggested that although they were on duty neither of the police officers were authorized by an officer in charge of a police station to enter shops under section $22(2)$ .
In my opinion the case is similar to Davis v. Lisle, (1936) 2 K. B.
434. I don't say that the police were wrong in entering the shop. I think they were right to do so but in the absence of the authority specified in section 15 $(2)$ they were not right to remain in the shop when accused asked them to leave and therefore they were not thus in that regard acting in the course of their duty.
$\hat{\mathbf{r}}$
The appeal is allowed herewith and sentence set aside.
$\overline{t}$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.