Appeal. Court. 7th Jan.,
1938.
Appeal from conviction by High
Court.
Unlawful
Possession of counterfeit coins
contra. section 150A of
the
Criminal Code-Onus of Proof.
Held: Although the section casts
onus on accused once possession
is proved, the onus remains on
Crown to prove conclusively such
possession; appeal allowed,
conviction quashed, etc.
There is no need to set out the
facts.
A. Soetan
for Appellant.
C. N. S. Pollard
for Crown.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., KIGERIA, BUTLER
LLOYD
AND CAREY, JJ.
This is a case where the
appellant was convicted in the
High Court of the Enugu-Onitsha
Division of having in his
possession thirteen counterfeit
shillings without lawful
authority or excuse contra.
section 150A of the Criminal
Code. The evidence against him
was that when his house was
searched, under a warrant, for
illicit liquor these coins were
found in a tin on a wall of the
house-a wall to which access
could be obtained either from
within or without the house. His
defence was that the coins were
"planted" by an enemy. The case
is somewhat similar to that of
Rex v. Ogllgu Onuoha-
where this Court in giving its
reason on the 4th November,
1936, for quashing the
conviction pointed out that when
an Appeal Court is asked to
quash :l conviction on the
ground that it cannot be
supported having regard to the
evidence every case must depend
on its own particular
circumstances.
In the present case, under the
new section 150A, although once
possession is proved the onus is
cast upon the accused to prove
lawful authority or excuse, the
onus still remains upon the
prosecution to give conclusive
evidence of possession. That is
to say the prosecution must
prove facts which are not
capable of any other reasonable
explanation than that the coins
were in accused's possession,
that is to say in the present
case that the coins found in
accused's house were there with
his guilty knowledge.
We can find in the case no one
fact or combination of facts
which conclusively negatives the
alternative possibility that the
coins were in accused's house
unknown to him, having been "
planted" there by some one else.
* Reported at 3
W.A.C A. p. 88.
