Rex v Kimingi
Rex v Kimingi (Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1947) [1947] EACA 72 (1 January 1947)
The court found that the evidence did not support a conviction for storebreaking because the appellant provided a plausible and corroborated explanation for his possession of the stolen property, and he was not in exclusive possession. The court further held that it was not permissible to substitute a conviction for receiving stolen property on a charge of storebreaking, as receiving is not a minor offence to storebreaking under section 179(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and section 187 only applies to charges of stealing. The precedent in Rex v. Maganbhai Valabhai Patel and Haribhai Apab…
Source excerpt
- Storebreaking
- Receiving Stolen Property
- Conviction On Alternative Offence
- Recent Possession Inference