[2022] KEHC 16065 (KLR)
The court found that although section 367(a) of the Penal Code does not expressly provide for an option of a fine, the prosecution did not oppose the applicant's plea for an alternative sentence. Considering the nature of the offence, the applicant's mitigation, the pre-sentence report, and the trial magistrate's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16065 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Pius Mutembei Mbogo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E250 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application allowed; sentence revised
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Counterfeit Currency Offences, Penal Code Section 367a, Alternative Sentence, Fine Instead of Imprisonment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pius Mutembei Mbogo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant should be revised to provide an option of a fine or probation order.
- 2 Whether section 367(a) of the Penal Code allows for an alternative sentence of a fine.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although section 367(a) of the Penal Code does not expressly provide for an option of a fine, the prosecution did not oppose the applicant's plea for an alternative sentence. Considering the nature of the offence, the applicant's mitigation, the pre-sentence report, and the trial magistrate's observations, the court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to revise the sentence. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of Kshs 300,000 or, in default, serve 2 years imprisonment, with the sentence to run from the original date of sentencing by the trial court.
Court Disposition
application allowed; sentence revised
Orders
- The applicant is ordered to pay a fine of Kshs 300,000 or in default to serve 2 years imprisonment.
- The sentence to run from December 8, 2021, the date of sentence by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Mbogo v Republic (Criminal Revision E250 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16065 (KLR) (Crim) (6 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16065 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Revision E250 of 2022
DO Ogembo, J
December 6, 2022
Between
Pius Mutembei Mbogo
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant Pius Mutembei Mbogo, has filed this undated application on September 26, 2022. The application brought under section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks for an order of revision of the sentence of the applicant. He has pleaded for probation order or the imposition of an option of fine. The prosecution has not opposed the application to give an alternative of a fine as sentence herein.
2. I have perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. The applicant faced a charge of being in possession of counterfeit currency contrary to section 367(a) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge were that on June 4, 2017, at Hailport Estate, Hurlingham in Nairobi within Nairobi County, jointly with others not before the court, he, (Together with his then co-accused) was found in possession of 106 bundles of counterfeit US dollars currency notes equivalent to Kshs 106,000,000/=.
3. Upon conclusion of the case, the applicant was sentenced to serve 2 years imprisonment. In sentencing the applicant, the court noted the mitigation raised by the applicant, the serious nature of the offence committed and the effect on the economy of the country had the fake or counterfeit currency found their way into circulation.
4. Section 367(a) of the Penal Code, under which the applicant was charged provides for a sentence of imprisonment for 7 years. In the sentence, the option of fine is not provided. The prosecution has however, not opposed the applicant’s plea for an alternative of fine in the sentence. In view of this, I allow the application and order that the sentence of the applicant be accordingly revised. Considering the nature of this case, the mitigation of the applicant, the pre-sentence report filed, and the observations of the trial magistrate during the sentence proceedings, I order that the applicant is ordered to pay a fine of Kshs 300,000/= or in default to serve 2 years imprisonment. The sentence to run from December 8, 2021, the date of sentence by the trial court.
RULING READ OUT IN PRESENCE OF APPLICANT (KAMITI MEDIUM) AND MS CHEGE FOR THE STATE.HON D O OGEMBOJUDGE6THDECEMBER 2022