BECAUSE the evidence of recent larceny of property would be inadmissible as evidence to a charge of unlawful possession of carcass or a quantity of meat, a convicted appellant had his conviction and sentence set aside by the Federal Supreme Court in 1961.

This happened because the appellant Balmookie was charged for unlawful possession of carcass, contrary to Section 95 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance Cap. 14.
The Federal Supreme Court constituted by Chief Justice Sir Erric Hallinan and Justices A.M. Lewis J. F. Marnan noted:
“Section 95 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Cap, 14, creates the offence of unlawful possession of the carcass of any of the animals referred to in title 7 of the Ordinance.”
The appellant was convicted under Section 95, but the statement of offence merely referred to a “carcass” while the particulars of offence referred to “a quantity of meat. “
The conviction did not state that the appellant had not satisfied the court that he came lawfully by the meat. At the trial evidence was led of the recent larceny of a sheep and that the meat was mutton.
On appeal from the Order of the Full Court affirming the conviction the Federal Supreme Court held: (1) the charge was bad since it did not refer to an animal mentioned in title 7 of Cap. 14; it was not sufficient to refer to the property merely as a carcass or as a quantity of meat
(ii)The conviction should have stated that the appellant had not satisfied the court that he came lawfully by the part of the sheep found in his possession;
(iii) Where there is a charge of unlawful possession under Section 95 of Cap. 14 evidence that a larceny of similar property to that the subject of the charge should not be led.

Appeal allowed
Attorney-at-Law Krishna Prasad appeared for the appellant while
E.A. Romao, Senior Crown Counsel represented the respondent.
Judgment of the Court

In this case the appellant was charged under section 95 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Cap. 14, the marginal note which reads “unlawful possession of animal or part thereof.“ The statement of offence was “unlawful possession of carcass, contrary to section 95” and in the particulars he was charged with being found in circumstances of suspicion with a quantity of meat.
”He was convicted under Section. 95 and the conviction merely records that he was found in circumstances of suspicion with a quantity of meat, contrary to section 95.
“The evidence was that a man called Reuben Ali missed one of his sheep on the 29th June and there was the evidence of two witnesses , Robert Gossai and Dolphin Selall, that two men, the appellant and the man jointly charged with him (Harry) , were seen each carrying a bundle containing raw meat, and Gossai said that having seen them he went to a reef over the raiIway line and there he saw a sheep head and skin which were fresh.
He reported the matter to Reuben Ali and to the police.
The prosecutor, Constable Beaton, then executed a search warrant and in the kitchen of the appellant he found some mutton which had been boiled and some similar meat on the floor. .The appellant, before the constable could pick it up, threw it out of the window where it was apparently consumed by dogs.
“The defendants did not make any attempt to satisfy the court that they had come lawfully by this meat, but they relied on certain legal submissions. The magistrate referred in his reasons to the evidence of Reuben Ali who had lost his sheep and to the evidence of Gossai and Selall, and of course the evidence of the prosecutor, Beaton, and found that the charge was proved. On appeal the Full Court affirmed the conviction and it went before come before the federal Supreme Court.
Many grounds of appeal were argued but it was only necessary to consider two. The first was that there were obvious defects both in the charge and in the conviction. The property, the subject of the charge has not been so described as to bring it within Section 95, because under that Section the animal must be of a kind mentioned in title 7 of Cap. 14 and it is not sufficient to refer to that property merely as a carcass or a quantity of meat.

The Federal Court in summing up the case noted:
“Moreover, in the conviction it should have been stated that the applicant had not satisfied the court that he came lawfully by the part of the sheep found in his possession, so that a very drastic amendment would have to be made both to the charge and to the conviction if this conviction is to be upheld.”
“That might be done under Section 24 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Ordinance ,Cap. 17, and under the powers vested in this court by Section 33 of the Federal Supreme Court (Appeals) Ordinance, No. 19 of 1958.”
“We consider that the ground of appeal is one of substance. The evidence of the owner of the lost sheep, Reuben Ali, should not have been admitted and in the circumstances, both having regard to this piece of inadmissible evidence and to the errors and omissions in the charge and conviction, this appeal should be allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside.”

(George Barclay)