Supreme Court Conviction For Theft Quashed On Appeal

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30763, 29 May 1965, Page 22

Supreme Court Conviction For Theft Quashed On Appeal

Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday allowed the appeal of Hirdesh Prakash Sharma, aged 21, a law clerk, against his conviction in the Magistrate’s Court on May 7 on a charge of theft of a bicycle valued at £lO on April 6, 1964. His Honour said the only evidence of theft was that Sharma was found to possession of the bicycle on March 5, 1965. On that date he had made a statement to the police in which he said he had obtained the bicycle from a cousin who had been living with him, and that the cousin had obtained the bicycle from another university student on a date which corresponded with the date when the bicycle had been stolen. On March 8 Shanna saw the police and made a second statement, to which he said his first explanation oi how the bicycle had come into his possession was incorrect and that the correct explanation was he had bought it from two drunk Samoan sailors on November 17, said his Honour.

It was fair to the appellant to say that on March 5 his solicitor, on his instructions, called on the police and informed them that the first statement made was untrue and that Sharma would be in after the week-end to furnish the true explanation. There was no direct evidence of theft implicating Sharma, said his Honour. The prosecution case rested fairly and squarely on the doctrine of recent possession. That doctrine was that if a person was found in possession of recently stolen goods and either gave no explanation or gave an unsuitable explanation he could be convicted of theft or receiving. It was open to the Magistrate or the jury, as the case might be, even though not accepting the explanation, to come to the conclusion that it might reasonably be true and to be left in such a state of doubt that entitled the accused person to acquittal. The Magistrate had held he was entitled to regard possession by Sharma of the bicycle as being established as very close to the date of the theft. To do that it was necessary for him to have relied on Sharma's first statement.

If he had done so the explanation there given was such that it was not possible for a finding of guilty of theft, but it was possible for a finding of guilty of receiving, said his Honour. Sharma had been charged alternatively with receiving but at the Lower Court hearing on May 7 the Magistrate acquitted him on that charge. If then the explanation of May 5, which established possession of the bicycle about the time of the theft was not available to the Court, the only evidence was in the second statement of possession in November. That date was far too remote from that of the theft to establish that he was in possession of recently stolen goods and consequently the doctrine of recent possession could not apply and the conviction was quashed. Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown, and Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for Sharma.