Rex v Patel
Rex v Patel (Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1945) [1946] EACA 65 (1 January 1946)
The court held that when the native paid Sh. 9 to the accused for a lamp in advance, both possession and property in the money passed to the accused. Even if the accused acted with fraudulent intent, the subsequent conversion or denial of receipt did not amount to theft under section 269 of the Penal Code, as the property had already passed. The law does not distinguish between English law and local law on this point. Therefore, the conviction for theft could not be sustained.
Source excerpt
- Theft
- Conversion
- Property In Money
- Fraudulent Intent
- Penal Code Section 269