19860627 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN '.l.'.lti!,; HIGH CuUHT UF TANZANIA L ~, AT Ulli ~S SALAAM JUHiblJIGTION HIUH COUkT CHIMINAL APPili-1.L N0.20 ()F 1986 O.tUGI.NAL CRIMINAL CA.SE N0. 103.0F 1985 i- Oli' Tli.t:; DISTHICT COURT OF KILOMBbHO DIST~ICT AT IFAKARA y Bduill:. 11-l.L. A.HO l!,;S ~ o , l.JIST1UCT MAGISTRATE AL.t;X B.l!i.l<N.i-dJO O • • • • 0 o O O o o o p ~ o o o • o o o D P D O o O O O • D APBELLANT • (0riginal Accused) versus Tllli UNITBlJ }{.&;PUBLIC ••••••••••••••••••••• 1-u::~PONJ.)ENT (Original Prosecutor) J U D G M :8 N T MSUMit J. Un 26th May, 1986 I allowed this appeal and ordered for the immediate release of the appellant. The following are the reasons for the said order. ~ppellant was convicted of Being found in possession of bhang. 'l'he only evidence on record is that appellant had in his possession some substance claimed to be bhang. But ·there is no specific evidence, expert or otherwise, to show that the substance in question was in fact bhang. None of the four witnesses called by the prosecution purported to identify that the alleged offansive substance was bhang. This is a serious ·I;' . ,• omission. ~·or all we know+ it is very likely thut the su.bstance in question could be anything but not bhang. Needless to remind the learned trial magistrate that as in the cases of ,unlawful possession of moshi, a chorge of unlawful possession of bhang is not established unless, inter alia, it is proved that the substance in question is in fact bhang. The absence of such proof leaves the ca~e for the prosecution incomplete. Hence it was on this reason alone that the juagment in this case was quashed and sentence set aside •. DAH t;b SALaAM 27th June, 1986 :for the .t<epublic For the kppellant: Absent.