THE Federal Supreme Court in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction in 1961, allowed an appeal

against a Order of the Full Court of British Guiana relative to a conviction of unlawful possession of carcass.

Because of errors and omissions and the admission of inadmissible evidence, appellant Balmookie who was accused of sheep stealing, won the legal battle in the Appellate Court.
The FSC was constituted, by Chief Justice Hallinan and Justices Lewis and Marnan.
Mr. Krishna Prasad appeared for the appellant Balmookie.
Mr. E. A. Romao represented the respondent.

Held: On a charge of unlawful possession of property under s.95 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Cap. 14 [B.G.], the only relevant evidence was of circumstances of suspicion relative to the defendant’s possession and evidence of larceny of property similar to the subject matter of the charge should not be led.

Appeal allowed by the FSC.
Delivering the judgment Chief Justice Hallinan said: In this case, the appellant was charged under s. 95 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance, Cap. 14 [B.G.], the marginal note of 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. He was convicted under s. 95, and the conviction merely records that he was found in circumstances of suspicion, with a quantity of meat contrary to s.95.
The evidence was that a man called Reuben Ali missed one of his sheep on June 29 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 each seen carrying a bundle containing raw meat and Gossai said that, having seen them, he went to a reef over the railway line and there he saw a sheep’s head and skin which were fresh.

He reported the matter to Reuben Ali and it was reported 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 animal meat on the floor.
The appellant, before the constable could pick it up, threw it out of the window, where apparently it was 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 a sheep, and to the evidence of Gossai and Seelall, and of course, the evidence of the prosecutor, Beaton, and found that the charge was proved.
On appeal, the Full Court affirmed that conviction and now it had come before that court.
Many grounds of appeal have been argued but it is only necessary to consider two. The first is that there are 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 s.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 as a quantity of meat.
Moreover, in the conviction it should have been stated that the appellant 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 s. 24 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Ordinance, Cap. 17 [B.G.], and under the powers vested in that particular court by s. 33 of the Federal Supreme Court (Appeals) Ordinance, No. 19 of 1958.

However the difficulties of the respondent did not end there. In the court’s view, where there is a charge of unlawful possession under s. 95, evidence of a larceny of similar property to that like the subject of the charge should not be led.
The only relevant evidence on a charge under section 95 is evidence of circumstances of suspicion relative to the defendant’s possession. Counsel for the respondent has referred to s. 41 (4) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Ordinance , Cap. 15 [B.G.}, and that read as follows:

“ Where unlawful possession under s. 94 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance is charged and the evidence establishes the commission of the offence of larceny of any kind , or of receiving stolen property and shall be punished accordingly.”
Subsection (7) of the same section then provides that if the magistrate does decide to proceed on a charge of larceny or receiving he must commence the proceedings de novo.
This section constitutes a very novel and drastic departure from legislation in pari materid and, in our view, it should be strictly construed. We do not think that its application should be extended beyond s. 94 of the Summary Jurisdiction Ordinance to which it refers.

We consider that this 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 the sentence set aside.
Appeal allowed.