Present: Akbar J.

KING v. THOMAS APPU.

47-D. C. (Crim.) Colombo, 9,041.

    Receiving stolen property-"Reasonable explanation by accused-Guilty knowledge-Burden of proof-Penal Code., s. 394.

Where, in a charge of receiving stolen property, the Court draws a presumption of guilty knowledge and the accused gives an explanation, which appears to be reasonable, the prosecution, if it is to succeed, is bound to prove from other facts, whether in conjunction with the accused's explanation or not, either that the accused had guilty knowledge or that the explanation is false.



APPEAL from a conviction by the District Judge of Colombo. The facts appear from the judgment.

L. A. Rajapakse, for accused, appellant.

J. W. R. Ilangakoon, C.C., for respondent.

July 9,1929. AKBAR J.-

This appeal is from a conviction on a charge of receiving stolen property, namely, a magneto and a battery, knowing them to be stolen property, and a sentence of 9 months' rigorous imprisonment passed on the accused.

The magneto and battery belonged to one Mr. Pestonjee, and he stated that the battery was numbered 72505 and the magneto F. U. 4. These numbers were given to the Police at the time of the theft, which occurred on September 13 to 14 last, and the stolen articles were valued at Rs. 400 by Mr. Pestonjee. Mr. Pestonjee had a motor car cleaner named Albert in bis employment who was paid weekly. It appears that this man Albert desired to be a monthly paid servant, and a week before this incident he was told that he had to leave as there was a permanent man. The battery and magneto were fixed in a lorry. Immediately after the discovery of the theft Albert did not come to work and he was arrested. As a result of a statement by him the house of the accused-who is the occupant of two rooms known as the Avasire Stores used for the supply of motor oil and the repairs of tubes and tyres-was searched and the magneto was discovered under a bed in the second room and the battery was found afterwards fixed to a motor bus belonging to one Basnaike who has given evidence. The discovery. of the magneto was made on September 21.

Albert, who was charged separately for theft, has given evidence in this case. He admits that- he removed the battery and the magneto belonging to his employer Pestonjee at the instigation of the accused, who promised to give him Rs. 15 and asked him to go away to his village. The accused's story is that he had known Albert for over a year as the owner-driver of a motor bus, that Albert was in the habit of buying things from him, and that he bought the battery and the magneto from Albert for Rs. 100. The accused has produced no receipt to support his story. The battery which was found fixed to Basnaike's bus bears the No. 250. The other two numbers have been obliterated according to the report of the Government Analyst. Basnaike, who has given evidence, says that he hired this battery leaving his old battery to be repaired and re-charged by the accused. The accused wanted Rs. 75 as the price of this battery, but Basnaike said that he would try it first and then buy it. He further says that he paid Rs. 25 for the repairing and charging of the battery and for the hire of the new battery. Basnaike admitted that he had got other batteries re-charged for Rs. 3, and that Bousteads charged Re. 1 a day for the hire of a battery, and that it will cost from Rs. 20 to Rs. 25 to repair a cell. The fixing of the stolen battery to Basnaike's bus took place at 8 p.m. at night, and it should be noted that he gave his old battery to the accused to be repaired, not by him but by some firm which did this kind of work. The accused's Counsel contends that the accused had no guilty intention, and all the authorities usually cited in a case of this sort, including Lord Reading's dictum in R.v. Abramovitch1[1(1915) 84 L.J.K.B.398.] were cited at the argument, and also the case of Per