19700423 TZHC Dar es salaam

Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) under Section 352 of the Critnnal Procedure Code). IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.......j5 ........... or 19.7.Q Original Criminal Case No..............147. ...................... of 193. of the District Court of District at ................ Bllosa ............................. before.......... 1) . . t. . . Gumbo, ............ Esq., den4.34ø96tca4e,)istrict Magistrate. Appellant (Original Accused) ............................................................................... j No1) versus THEREPUBLIC. ......................................................................................... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Being in possessien of propertr suspected of having been stolen contrary to section 312 of the Penal Code, Cap. 1, and section 24 of the Cxthninal Procedure Code * JUDGMENIQBDJR WJSTAFA J. - Appellant was convicted of being In possession of property suspected of having been stolen, contrary to section 512 of the Penal Code and section 24 of the Criiinal Procedure Code, and sentenced to six months t lmpr1sonnnt. Appellant was a bicle repairer, and when his shop was searched he had about five bicycle frames. He could not explain the ownership of one of the frames, and because he had failed to do so it was alleged that it iust have been stolen property. That is hardly sufficient evidence for a conviction. Originally appellant was charged with another person, who was acquitted. It is clear that appellant could not have been guilty of an offence contrary to section 312. The particulars of offence state:- G P Dm 10224/12-65/60m/4up "The persons charged joint]y on 1 he :29th May 1969 at about 06.30 hours at adoto Vil1ge within KiJosa District, Morogoro Regiou, were stopped and detained by No. '9965 Corporal Ekama as the result of the exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 24 of the Crinna1 Procedure Codes having in their possession or conveying a Raleigh bicycle frame No 2 in a manner reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained." There is absolutely no evidence that appellant was arrested while he was on a journey, or that he was stopped on the road, searched and found in possession. The police went to his repair shop and searched the shop, and found a bicycle frame which appellant apparently could not explain. The possession in this case is not rs with conveyl:,. For these reasons the appeal Is al1owed, the conviction quashed, and the sentence set aside. The appellant is to be released forthwith unless lawfully held in some other connection. telivered in Court at Dr es Sa.laam this 23rd day of AiL, 1970. (Sgd.) A. MUSTAFA. JuDGE