S v Leopeng and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1966 (4) SA 484 (A)

S v Leopeng and Another
1966 (4) SA 484 (A)

1966 (4) SA p484

Citation	1966 (4) SA 484 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	van Blerk JA, Botha JA and Holmes JA
Heard	August 30, 1966
Judgment	September 15, 1966

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Verdict — Accused entitled to verdict on C each count as charged — Confusion between goods stolen on one occasion and another — No proof that any particular goods stolen on any particular occasion — Counts treated as one — Conviction set aside — Act 56 of 1955, sec. 169 (6).

Headnote : Kopnota

The appellants had been charged on two counts of theft committed on D separate dates. The trial Court had, for all purposes, treated the two counts as one because, inter alia, of the difficulty of the complainants identifying the foods stolen on each particular occasion. There was no evidence to support a conviction on either count treated separately. In an appeal,

Held, that the trial Court had put it out of its power to pronounce verdicts in terms of section 169 (6) of Act 56 of 1955 and therefore had deprived the appellants of their right to demand an acquittal on each E count. Appeal accordingly allowed.

Case Information

Appeal from a conviction in the Northern Transvaal Local Division (STEYN, J.). The facts appear from the judgment of VAN BLERK, J.A.

H. J. Preiss, for the appellants: In the welter of confusion arising on F the evidence, the goods found in the possession, or under the control, of each of the appellants were not shown to relate either to count 4, or to count 5, treated separately. The procedure adopted by the trial Judge to bring order out of this chaos resulted in a failure of justice. As to the requirement of a separate finding on each of the counts, an analogy G is provided by sec. 145 of Act 56 of 1955, which relates to jury trials.

D. Kent, for the State: The goods found in the possession or under the control of the two accused can be related to both count 4 and count 5, treated separately. Accordingly accused 1 and 2 should be convicted on H both counts 4 and 5. The Judge a quo was correct in taking the two counts together for the purpose of conviction, and therefore treating them as one count. He was also correct in finding that the accused would not be prejudiced by treating the two counts as one for the purpose of conviction and, therefore, no injustice resulted from the treatment of...