The Attorney General V. Rawther

Present: Bertram C.J. and Ennis and De Sampayo JJ. 1924.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. RAWTHER.

770-P. C. Colombo, 2,396.

Retaining stolen property-Presumption of guilt from recent possession- Counter presumption of innocence of accused-Benefit of the doubt- Burden of proof-English law of evidence for questions not provided for-" May presume "-" Soon after "-" Unless he can account for his possession "-" Reasonable explanation "-" Explanation which may reasonably be true "-Obligation of accused to call witnesses named by him in support of his explanation-Penal Code, s. 394-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 100 and 114.

A stolen pair of nail scissors was found within about fifteen days of the loss in the locked drawer of a locked almirah of which the accused had the keys. The accused, when charged with dishonestly retaining stolen property, said that he did not put them there, but that his son had access to the almirah, and that he frequently gave him the keys. He also said that his son had bought them from one Junaideen. He named Junaideen and his son as his witnesses, but did not call them at the trial. The Magistrate said in his judgment: "I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document