[1961]DLSC10221 • November 13, 1961 • Supreme Court •
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. BELLO
The appellant, a professional letterwriter, was alleged to have charged and received £G3 10s. from the complainant for preparing documents, but issued a receipt for only ten shillings, allegedly to circumvent the Illiterates Protection Ordinance. The complainant claimed to have been overcharged and sought redress.
read moreCrabbe, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. [His lordship rehearsed the facts as set out in the headnote and continued:] The appellant obviously [p.649] had the penalty under the Illiterates Protection Ordinance1 in mind when he strenuously denied that he received the sum of £G3 10s. from the complainant as remuneration for preparing the documents. He maintained that he charged only ten shillings for his services and issued a receipt, exhibit B, for that amount. We are, however, satisfied that there was ample evidence on record to sustain the allegation that the complainant paid the sum of £G3 10s. to the appellant on the 17th September, 1960. But the crucial matter to determine was whether the appellant was guilty of stealing. The offence of stealing is defined in section 125 of the Criminal Code, 19602 as follows: “A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner." In section 120 there is an explanation of what amounts to dishonest a...