JUDGMENTBY: MATHEW CJ

(delivering the judgment of the Court): -- The appellant was charged with two offences of consorting contrary to regulation 5(1) of the Emergency Regulations 1948, one offence of being in possession of a revolver contrary to regulation 4(1)(a) of the Emergency Regulations 1951 and one offence of being in possession of ammunition contrary to regulation 4(1)(b) of the Emergency Regulations 1951. The period which these offences covered was from 1948 to 1955. He was asked to plead to these four charges and eventually pleaded guilty to the two charges which related to consorting; he claimed trial to the two charges under regulation 4. He was convicted on his own plea in respect of the charges concerning consorting but was never sentenced, a practice which the Court has pointed out on more than one occasion is contrary to the plain provision of section 183(ii) Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section (i) of section 165 Criminal Procedure Code reads:--

"If in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same

transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he

may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document