S v Ngoala

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1979 (2) SA 212 (T)

S v Ngoala
1979 (2) SA 212 (T)

1979 (2) SA p212

Citation	1979 (2) SA 212 (T)
Court	Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Boshoff Wn RP en Gordon R
Heard	October 23, 1978
Judgment	October 23, 1978

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Sterk drank — Oortredings — Besit van skokiaan ter oortreding van art 166 (q) gelees met arts 122 (a), (b), (c), (d), 151A en 168 van Wet 30 van 1928 — Vermoede in art 151A — Wanneer dit in werking tree — As vermoede in werking tree is dit nie nodig om deskundige getuienis oor die aard van die betrokke vloeistof aan te bied nie — "Voorkoms" in art 151A — Betekenis van — Nie nodig om in aanklag te beweer dat skokiaan 'n brousel of drank is wat vervaardig word deur die gisting of distillering van stroop ens, nie — Waar aanklag beweer dat die beskuldigde "'n brouse, te wete skokiaan" besit het, word aan die bepalings van art 84 (3) van Wet 51 van 1977 voldoen.

Headnote : Kopnota

Om die vervolging, in 'n aanklag van besit van skokiaan ter oortreding van art 166 (q), gelees met arts 122 (a), (b), (c), (d), 151A en 168, van Wet 30 van 1928, die voordeel van die vermoede vervat in art 151A van die Wet te laat verkry, is dit nodig vir die vervolging om te bewys dat die beskuldigde 'n vloeistof besit het wat die voorkoms van 'n art 122 bedoelde en in die aanklag vermelde brousel of drank gehad het. Die brousel of drank wat dus in die aanklag vermeld word, moet dus 'n brousel of drank wees wat in art 122 bedoel word.

Waar die vermoede in art 151A in werking tree, is dit nie nodig vir die Staat om deskundige getuienis aan te bied oor die aard van die vloeistof wat in besit van die beskuldigde gevind is nie.

Die woord "voorkoms" in art 151A van Wet 30 van 1928, waar dit gebruik word ten opsigte van 'n brousel of drank, dui nie slegs op die kleur en die bestanddele wat met die oog gesien kan word nie. Dit dui eerder op die algehele uiterlike van die vloeistof, met al sy eienskappe en eienaardighede, wat met die verskillende sintuie waargeneem kan word, soos, bv, kleur, tekstuur, smaak en reuk. So 'n vloeistof is gewoonlik deurgesyg, en dit sou moeilik wees om bestanddele visueel vas te stel. Dit sou eerder deur 'n reuk of smaak onderskei kan word.

Waar 'n beskuldigde aangekla word van besit van 'n brousel, te wete skokiaan, ter oortreding van art 166 (q), gelees met arts 122 (a), (b), (c), (d), 151A en 168 van die Wet is dit nie nodig om te beweer dat skokiaan wat in sub-art (a) van art 122 vermeld word 'n brousel of drank is wat vervaardig word deur die gisting of distillering van stroop, suiker of ander stowwe nie, want 'n brousel bekend as "skokiaan" dui daarop.

So 'n aanklag voldoen aan die bepalings van art 84 (3) van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 deurdat die beskrywing van die misdryf in die aanklag in die bewoording van die wetsbepaling wat die misdryf skep, geskied, en in die bewoording blyk dit duidelik dat die beskuldigde skokiaan, 'n brousel wat in art 122 (a) vermeld word, besit het.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Intoxicating liquor — Offences — Possession of skokiaan in contravention of s 166 (q) read with ss 122 (a), (b), (c), (d), 151A and 168 of Act 30 of 1928 — Presumption in s 151A — When it comes into operation — If presumption comes into operation, it is not necessary to adduce expert evidence of the nature of the liquid concerned — "Appearance" in s 151A — Meaning of — Not necessary to aver in charge that skokiaan is a concoction or drink which is made from the fermentation or distillation of syrup etc — Where charge avers that the accused possessed "a concoction, to wit skokiaan", the provisions of s 84 (3) of Act 51 of 1977 are complied with.

Headnote : Kopnota

For the prosecution, in a charge of possession of skokiaan in contravention of s 166 (q), read with ss 122 (a), (b), (c, (d), 151A and 168, of Act 30 of 1928, to obtain the benefit of the presumption contained in s 151A of the Act it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused possessed a liquid which had the appearance

1979 (2) SA p213

of a concoction or drink intended by s 122 and mentioned in the charge. The concoction or drink which is thus mentioned in the charge must, therefore, be a concoction or drink as intended in s 122.

Where the presumption in s 151A comes into operation, it is not necessary for the State to adduce expert evidence of the nature of the liquid found in the possession of the accused.

The word "appearance" in s 151A of Act 30 of 1928, where it is used in respect of a concoction or drink, does not merely point to the colour and the ingredients which can be seen. It points rather to the total appearance of the liquid, with all its characteristics and peculiarities, which can be perceived with the different senses, as, eg, colour, texture, taste and smell. Such a liquid is usually filtered and it would be difficult to determine the ingredients visually. Rather would they be differentiated by smell or taste.

Where an accused is charged with possession of a concoction, to wit skokiaan, in contravention of s 166 (q), read with ss 122 (a), (b), (c), (d), 151A and 168, of the Act, it is not necessary to aver that skokiaan which is mentioned in ss (a) of s 122 is a concoction or drink which is made from the fermentation or distillation of syrup, sugar or other substances as a concoction known as "skokiaan" points to that.

Such a charge complies with the provisions of s 84 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in that the description of the offence in the charge occurs in the wording of the statutory provision which creates the offence, and in that wording it clearly appears that the accused possessed skokiaan, a concoction which is mentioned in s 122 (a). D

Case Information

Appèl deur die Prokureur-generaal kragtens art 310 (2) van Wet 51 van 1977. Die aard van die regsvraag en die feite blyk uit die uitspraak.

J A v S d' Oliviera namens die Staat

B C Bredenkamp namens die respondent. E

Judgment

Boshoff Wn RP:

In hierdie saak appelleer die...