MUHAMADU HANIFA v. BANDIRALA et al.

MUHAMADU HANIFA v. BANDIRALA et al.

P. C, Kurunegala, 10,064.

 

Dishonest retention of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen- Evidence Act of 1895, s. 14-Presumption of theft arising from possession ?soon after " theft.

Retention implies an innocent receipt in the first instance, which becomes a dishonest retention after the receiver has come to know or has good reason to believe that the property so received and retained is stolen property.

Where certain property alleged to have been stolen was found in possession of the accused eighteen months after the alleged theft- Held, that such possession was not possession " soon after " the theft, so as to support the presumption of theft or dishonest retention of stolen property under section 14 of the Evidence Act of 1895, illustration 1.

THE facts of the case are fully set forth in the following judgment of the Supreme Court.

Bawa, for accused, appellant.

12th January, 1899. Withers, J.-

On the 22nd November last the prosecutor informed the Police Court of Kurunegala that about eighteen months previously a bundle of new cloths had been stolen from his possession a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document