Share
Rex v Bakari (Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940) [1940] EACA 20 (1 January 1940)
- Citation
- [1940] EACA 20
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Webb CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Webb CJ, Whitley CJ, Wilson J
- Case number
- Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940
- 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 information was defective for failing to specify the particular felony intended, this omission was not fatal in the present case because the evidence made it clear to the accused that the alleged felony was theft of the tin box or its contents. The Court emphasized that prejudice to the accused is the determining factor; if there is no reasonable possibility of prejudice, section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be applied to cure the defect. The Court also stressed the importance of providing full and precise particulars in charges but found no prejudice in this instance and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Bakari bin Yusuf
AppellantRex
Respondent Counsel: Smith03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether failure to specify the particular felony intended in the information is a fatal defect.
- 02
Whether the accused was prejudiced by the omission in the information.
Party arguments
- Respondent
- Smith, Crown Counsel, argued that the omission to specify the particular felony in the information did not prejudice the accused, as the evidence made it clear what felony was alleged.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 335, Criminal Procedure Code
An information charging entry into a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony should specify the particular felony intended.
- 02
Balmakand Ram v. Ghansam Ram (22 Cal. at p. 405)
Failure to specify the particular felony is not a fatal defect if the accused was not prejudiced.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that although the information was defective for failing to specify the particular felony intended, this omission was not fatal in the present case because the evidence made it clear to the accused that the alleged felony was theft of the tin box or its contents. The Court emphasized that prejudice to the accused is the determining factor; if there is no reasonable possibility of prejudice, section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be applied to cure the defect. The Court also stressed the importance of providing full and precise particulars in charges but found no prejudice in this instance and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Obiter and limits
- Section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a panacea for all deficiencies in informations or charges.
- It is essential to give the accused full and precise particulars of the offence in the charge or information.
Court disposition
appeal_dismissed
- The appeal is dismissed.
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
COURT OF APPEAL FOR EASTERN AFRICA
Before WHITLEY, C. J. (Uganda), WEBB, C. J., and WILSON, J. (Tanganyika)
REX, Respondent υ
BAKARI BIN YUSUF, Appellant (Original Accused) Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1940
(Appeal from decision of H. M. High Court of Tanganyika)
Criminal Law-Entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein-Information should show the particular felony intended-Failure to disclose the particular felony intended not necessarily a fatal defect.
Held (29-7-40).—That an information of entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein should specify the particular felony intended but failure to do so will not be a fatal defect if the accused was not thereby prejudiced.
Appellant absent, unrepresented.
Smith, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
JUDGMENT (delivered by WEBB, C. J.).—The evidence in this case is very clear, but undoubtedly the information is defective in that it states only that the appellant entered a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony therein but omits to specify, as it ought, what was the particular felony intended. In some cases this might be a fatal defect, but in this particular case it must have been plain to the appellant from the evidence of the first witness that the suggestion was that he was attempting to steal the tin box or its contents. As was said in Balmakand Ram v. Ghansam Ram (22 Cal. at p. 405), "we must be guided, not by the undefined possibility of the accused having been prejudiced, but by some suggestion which a reasonable man can accept, that there has been prejudice to the accused". Where the Court feels that there is no possibility that the accused can have been prejudiced by some error or omission in the charge or information the provisions of section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Code may properly be applied. But we cannot too strongly emphasize the importance in drawing up informations and charges of giving the accused full and precise particulars of the offence with which he is charged. Section 335 must not be regarded as a panacea capable of curing all deficiencies; it cannot be invoked where there seems to be a reasonable possibility that the accused may have been prejudiced. Having regard to the record of the appellant the sentence is not excessive.
The appeal is dismissed.
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.