---

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

 

 

---