Cader Pitthei Mohomadu v. Hon. Attorney General – CA 126/2012-2012

In the case between Cader Pitthei Mohomadu (Accused–Appellant) and the Hon. Attorney General (Respondent), the court addressed the issue of whether the High Court failed to comply with Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code by not reading and explaining the amended indictment to the accused. It was determined that the amended indictment, filed during trial, was not read or explained as required, constituting a procedural lapse. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on 20.03.2012 were set aside, and a retrial was ordered. This decision reaffirmed the principle that statutory procedural requirements in criminal proceedings are mandatory and any deviation necessitates remedial action. Reliance was placed upon the clear requirements of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code