King V. William Perera, P.A.

[COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.]

1944 Present: Howard C.J., Keuneman and de Kretser JJ.

THE KING v. P. A. WILLIAM PERERA et al,

49-M.C. Gampaha 18,370.

Evidence-Recent possession of stolen property-Presumption of theft or receiving stolen property-Presumption of fact-Evidence Ordinance, s. 114, illustration (a).

The two accused were charged with the offences, among others, of being members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit robbery and were convicted of committing offences punishable under sections 146 and 436, 146 and 333, 146 and 382 of the Penal Code.

The main evidence against the accused was that on the day after the robbery several hundred sheets of rubber, which were removed
from the bungalow which was broken to, were found in the houses of the two accused. The other evidence against the accused was that of two witnesses, who deposed that on the night of the robbery they met the first accused driving a cart, in which there were several other persons and that the second accused was walking behind the cart.

Held, that the evidence in the case coupled with the failure of the accused to give eviden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document