S v Becker

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Watermeyer J and Tebbutt AJ
• Judgment Date: 19 October 1967
• Citation: 1968 (1) SA 18 (C)
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Tebbutt, A.J.:

The appellant was charged before the regional magistrate for the Cape with 162 counts of theft. These thefts of amounts ranging from R84.79 to R1.26 and totalling R5,131.16 were alleged to have been committed during the period 13th June, 1964, to the

Tebbutt AJ

5th November, 1965, from the Public Works Department, Cape Town, where the appellant was employed as a clerk. The appellant pleaded guilty to all the counts and the State then proceeded to provide the necessary proof required by sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955, as amended, that A the offences were actually committed. At the conclusion of the State evidence the appellant called no witnesses and gave no evidence himself and he was then found guilty by the magistrate of 160 counts and sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment on each count, i.e. over 4 years and 4 months in all. The magistrate found that the evidence on counts 158 and 160 was insufficient for a conviction on those two counts.

B The appellant now appeals against his conviction and sentence. Originally he appealed only against the sentence imposed on him on the ground that it was excessively severe but on 31st March, 1967, my Brother WATERMEYER and I granted him leave to appeal against his C conviction as well when we allowed an application in terms of sec. 103 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 32 of 1944, condoning the late noting of an appeal against his conviction and for leave to amend his grounds of appeal. At the same time we postponed the hearing of the appeal to afford the magistrate an opportunity of making any further D comments on the amended grounds of appeal. The appellant's amended grounds of appeal to include an appeal against the conviction have now been filed and the magistrate has furnished additional reasons with regard thereto.

The ground of appeal against appellant's conviction is that on counts 2 to 157 inclusive the State failed to prove, by means of admissible E evidence, the commission of the relevant offences in terms of sec. 258 (1) (b) of Act 56 of 1955. In other words, he does not appeal against his conviction on four of the counts, viz. counts 1, 159, 161 and 162. It is the appellant's contention, broadly, that in seeking to prove the commission of the offences on counts 2 to 157 inclusive the State relied F upon evidence which, properly construed, was of a hearsay nature and therefore inadmissible. It is therefore necessary to set out in some detail the evidence that was led on those counts.

The evidence was that of one Abraham Brink Loubscher who is an accountant in the employ of the Public Works Department, Cape Town. He said that appellant worked in the Department as an accountant, grade 2, G in charge of the wage section. He also acted at times as cashier. Appellant's duties included the drawing up and supervision of pay-sheets and, while cashier, he made the cash payments of wages. He therefore had the opportunity at certain times of making out a pay-sheet and of himself paying out the amount reflected thereon. Loubscher stated that H there was an investigation, in which he participated, during which it was found that in certain instances payments had purportedly been made to employees in the Department who had apparently signed the pay-sheets indicating that they had received the amounts reflected therein whereas they had in fact not received the amounts or signed the sheets while in other cases payments had been made to fictitious persons. I feel it is necessary to set out the ipsissima verba of his evidence (which was mechanically recorded). In regard to a pay-sheet reflecting a false signature, he said:

Tebbutt AJ

'Laat ek teruggaan op hierdie, Edelagbare, ek het die ondersoek gedoen. Ek het na dit bevel geneem van hierdie afdeling, na hierdie betaalstaat natuurlik. Ek het nie self hierdie gesien nie maar ek het gesien toe ons die ondersoek gedoen het. Hierdie mense het toe gesê dit is nie hulle handtekeninge nie.

Was die beskuldigde by gewees met die ondersoek? - Nee, dit is gedurende die ondersoek, Edelagbare.

Deur die hof:

A Kan u sê of dit daardie persone se handtekeninge is of nie? - Ek kan nie sê of dit hulle handtekeninge is of nie. Hulle het vir my gesê dit is nie hulle handtekeninge nie.'

On those counts where it was alleged that false signatures had been written on the pay-sheets, viz. counts 1, 159, 161 and 162, the persons B whose signatures they purported to be were called and they denied the genuineness of the signatures. No question of inadmissibility in regard to the evidence on those counts therefore arises.

However, in regard to those counts where the allegation was that payments were made to fictitious persons a very different situation exists. Those are counts 2 to 157 inclusive. In respect thereof Loubscher stated that he had access to the records ('boeke') of the C Public Works Department, that a staff file and a record card were kept for every employee and that in the course of the investigation mentioned it was found that payments had been made to persons for whom no records existed. Again, I quote Loubscher's ipsissima verba in respect of count 3, an amount of R37.73 allegedly paid out to one W. Williams:

'Deur die aanklaer: (Vervolg)

D U het ook toegang tot die boeke van die Publieke Department Werke? - Ja.

Dit is nou vir persone wat in diens geneem word. Word daar 'n register van gehou? - Van die klerke?

Ja, van alle werkers? - Van alle werkers, ja.

Daar word 'n staf lêer gehou van elkeen en 'n rekord kaart.

En daar is so 'n persoon as 'n B. Hendriks in diens? - Nee, hierdie een was nie in diens nie, Edelagbare. Met ons ondersoek het ons geen E bewysse gevind dat hy in diens was nie.

So dit is heeltemaal 'n ongekende persoon? - Heeltemaal.

Is enige iemand geregtig om 'n loonstaat uit te maak vir die bedrag en die tjek uit te skryf en die tjek te trek? - Hoegenaamd nie. Edelagbare, waar daar nie rekords bestaan nie.

D.w.s. dit is 'n verlies vir die Departement die bedrag? - Ja.

Ek toon aan u 'n betaalstaat uitgemaak in die naam van W. Williams, bedrag van R36.73. Is dit ook 'n betaalstaat wat op die oog af F heeltemaal eg lyk. Bewysstuk 3 'b', die tjek uitgemaak ten gunste van W. Williams bedrag van R37.73. Is dit uitgemaak as gevolg van . . .? - Op sterkte van hierdie betaalstaat. Daar was geen bewysstukke om hierdie betaalstaat te staaf nie. Geen tydkaarte of rekort kaarte om te wys dat die persoon by ons in diens was of daar gewerk het nie.

In ander woorde daar bestaan nie so 'n persoon nie? - Dis reg.

Het enige iemand die reg gehad om die geld te trek? - Nee, Edelagbare.

Dit is dan die verlies van die Departement? - Ja.'

G In regard to counts 4 to 17 inclusive, Loubscher was taken seriatim through the pay-sheets forming the exhibits on each of the counts and asked whether the persons reflected therein existed or not. His recorded answer read

'Count 4: (V. Hendriks): Is daar so 'n persoon in bestaan soos v Hendriks? - Hy het nie so bestaan in ons Departement nie.

H Count 5: (B. Hewitt): Bestaan daar so 'n persoon as B. Hewitt in die diens van die Publieke Departement? - Ook nie, Edelagbare. Ons het geen bewyse daar nie dat daar so 'n persoon bestaan nie.

Count 6: (H. Williams): is daar so 'n persoon in diens gewees van die Publieke Werke Departement? - Ons ondersoek het bewys dat daar nie so 'n persoon bestaan nie.

Count 7: (A. Wilson): Is daar so 'n persoon in die Departement gewees? - Nee. Ondersoek het bewys dat daar nie so 'n persoon is nie.

Count 8: (H. Williams): Is daar so 'n persoon soos H. Williams by die Departement in diens geneem? - Nee, ondersoek het bewys dat dit ook 'n fiktiewe persoon is.

Count 9: (J. Williams): Is daar so 'n persoon by u Departement in diens? - Nee.

Tebbutt AJ

Die ondersoek het bewys dat daar ten tye nie so 'n persoon gewerk het nie.

Count 10: (S. Campbell): Was so 'n persoon by u Departement in diens gewees? - Nee, met ons ondersoek het ons bewys dat daar nie so 'n persoon in diens was nie.

Count 11: (P. Hendricks): Was daar so 'n persoon by die Departement? - Die ondersoek het bewys dat daar nie so 'n persoon was nie.

A Count 12: (J. Williams): Is daar so 'n persoon by die Departement in diens? - Nee.

Count 13: (J. Joshua): Is daar so 'n persoon by u Departement in diens gewees? - Nee, die ondersoek het dit bewys.

Count 14: (F. Heyns): Bestaan so 'n persoon by die Departement? - Nee, die ondersoek het bewys dat daar nie so 'n persoon bestaan nie.

Count 15: (J. P. Geldenhuys): Is daar so 'n...