Chohan and another v. R. Crim. App. 765-D-70; 8/1/71; Biron J.

 

 Chohan and another v. R. Crim. App. 765-D-70; 8/1/71; Biron J.

The appellants were convicted of attempted stealing and sentenced to ten strokes of corporal punishment. It was alleged that they were found by the police unserewing the bolts of a spotlight on a parked vehicle but did not remove it. Whereupon the police accosted and arrested them. It was submitted for the appellants that: (a) their action in tampering with the spotlight did not constitute an attempt to steal as it did not go beyond the preparatory stage and had not reached the stage of starting to excute the intent to steal by the removal of the spotlight, [Citing Adam Mulira v. R. 20 E. A. C. A. 223 and Hope v. Brown [1954] 1 all E. . 330] (b) the appellants desisted of their own accord before executing the intent and could not therefore be convicted of attempting to steal.

            Held: (1) The cases cited are distinguishable “in that there had been no act beyond the stage of preparation, whereas in this instant cases the appellant in attempting to unscrew the bolts which secured the spotlight had, in the terms o the section [380 of the Penal code] ‘begun to put his intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfillment and had manifested his intention by some overt act.” (2) “The sentence on the first appellant is illegal as his age as given in the charge sheet is sixteen years. He was therefore an adult within the meaning of the Corporal Punishment Ordinance (Cap. 17 Supp. 58) to which the attention of the magistrate is directed, wherefrom he will note that attempted stealing is not punishable with corporal punishment in the case of an adult.” The other appellant is also an adult by now. The age of the other appellant is given in the charge sheet as fourteen years; incidentally, he is also an adult by now, though he was not at the time of the conviction which was on the 3^rd of April 1970.” (3) “The sentences are accordingly set aside and there

is substituted therefore in the case of each appellant a conditional discharge under section 38 of the Penal Code, the condition being that he commits no offence for a period of twelve months.” (4) Appeals dismissed.