About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAFSHC 221
|
|
S v Ralepanyana (R193-2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 221 (28 November 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case number:
R193/2019
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
MOEKETSI
PETRUS RALEPANYANE
CORAM:
JORDAAN, J
et
OPPERMAN,
J
JUDGMENT
BY:
JORDAAN, J
DELIVERED
ON:
28
NOVEMBER 2019
REVIEW JUDGMENT
[1]
This matter was submitted for special review in terms of
section
304
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
.
[2]
The accused was charged with stock theft in contravention of the
Stock Theft Act 57 of 1959,
allegedly having stolen 14 sheep. He
was legally represented
and pleaded guilty of receiving stolen
property in contravention of section 37 of the General Law
Amendment Act 62 of 1955. The plea was accepted by the
prosecution on the basis of the
plea explanation that was submitted.
However, he admitted to receiving only 11 sheep.
[3]
The presiding magistrate convicted the accused of contravention
of section 37(2) of the General
Law Amendment Act and
sentenced him to 6 years
imprisonment, wholly suspended for a
period of five years.
[4]
First of all, a conviction of receiving stolen property contravenes
section 37(1) and
not (2). Secondly, stock or produce as defined in the Stock Theft Act
is explicitly excluded from the ambit of
section 37. The conviction was therefore irregular as correctly
pointed out by
the acting regional court magistrate who submitted
the matter for special review.
[5]
The learned regional court magistrate suggested that the charge
should have been contravention of section
2 of the Stock Theft Act.
However, on the basis of the plea explanation the accused knew that
the sheep were stolen, which would
have justified a conviction in
terms of section 11(1)(b) of the Stock Theft Act.
[6]
As aforesaid, the conviction was not competent and must be set
aside.
[7]
In the result the following orders are made:
1.
The
conviction and sentence are set aside.
2.
The
matter is remitted to the regional court to be dealt with
de
novo
.
AF JORDAAN, J
I
concur
M OPPERMAN, J