Korba s/o Farah v. R., Crim. App. 590-D-66; 18/2/67, J

Korba s/o Farah v. R., Crim. App. 590-D-66; 18/2/67, J

Accused was convicted of violating section 3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, Chapter 400. The evidence was that he had paid Shs. 300/- to an Area Commissioner in an attempt to obtain a permit to transport maize. He was immediately arrested by two constables who were in the vicinity by arrangement. Accused ’s defence was that the Area Commissioner had no power to issue the permit. In addition to the sentence prescribed by the Minimum Sentences Act, the trial court ordered that the money handed to the Area Commissioner be forfeited by the accused.

            Held: (1) It is no defence that the Area Commissioner had no authority to issue the desired permit since the accused intended that he act as an intermediary and influence the members of the board empowered to issue such permits. Citing R. v. Smith, 44 Crim. App. Rep. 55. Thus the action of the accused was “putrid, vitiated and tainted.” Citing Emperor v. Rams Nana Hagvane, I L..R. Vol XLV1 (Bombay) 317 (2) Under Section 3(3) (b) of the Prevention of corruption Ordinance, money may be forfeited only where the accused has received something and in this case the accused received nothing. It was ordered that the forfeiture be set aside and the money be returned to the accused. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.