19771003 TZHC Mwanza5

---~..,··-~- i:.PPELL1-/I'E JURI '.,TJICTI :JN iIGH Cou;;:T CRI-i•fflJi,L /.PP:::AL :t-lOo -130 OF 1977 o (Oriqinal Crin.i:10.:1. Case:: Noo 948 of 1976 of th2 District Court of Mwa,:za District at Mwanza - Before J.M. Mweyunge, Esq.; ~istrict M~gistratc) versus THE }--: £PU i·:L,IC o n o o o o o o o co o () o o o o ,~no,., o o t't o t> o o o o o coo o o o o o o o o o o Q o o o o Rf::SPt.Ji\J1JEf'JT CHARGE: Corru)t tr1nsAction with 3q2nts c/s 3(1)(a) of the Prev,c:: t:Lr.,n ::;f Corru;:)tion ,,ct 1'lo. 16 of 1971. JUDGEMSi\JT 'i'hc appcl.i.ant a::d anothL,r p,,,. ·sen, th,? :fii.·st ac:.:us12d, were jointly chcI'(Jd.'i with corrupt trans:\ctiono It was stated th,,t on 30 Octob r, 1976 tl10y corruptly obtair1-.~d shs. tWO/= from Gervas R..::voce:tu.s ( PW3) as c:J'. :i.--,duceri",.~nt to offer G,~rvas ernploym-~:nt with Mwatex where they we.n~ t:--.;_~:ai..:::,.,lv..::s ,, 1nploy1:::d. nt the clos..:: ,y,." the trial thr-1 f.ir"t accused ;;:_~.s .:::cquittc,d 1.-;hil<= th ..: ~ )pel: ant was cJnvictc>d of obtaini::g money by f, J.s,.:; pr,=tc~n.c,c·S contrary to s.,302 of the Pc.:.1:!al Code .. G,~_:-:-vas t-:,::,tifi ::·1 th,,1t h•.-~ personally gav-2 ti·1c, mo.1,.,y tc, the fi,:·st accused. He t;1~:,:1 w,~r:t :Jut uf th•.~ first accused I s of fie,~ and si9:-1al!.,.!d the det'"ci:::; v,,:o 1t1hc; ]·,::d 2ccoi'."!:):::1.i .,d him on this rni.-::sion. But w:1en ·l:11(:: detectiv

..!,<~ \J :·:t in ;:•nd s,~Rrch,,c th,~ fi.>~st 2ccu,:·,:d they did not find him with any mo:-:,:~y., Inst-.:::ad th,~y found ..:>hs o 200/= in a dr21,.rer t1·1=1t was in common use., i,ppc.r-~ntly, at th) s,,.;nc) tim,""? as G,0rva.s was app,0arL:g to take the ~J;2y to the first accu.s~d, the appc~lant had dntered th~ office cud 0~)8~,2d t·,is drnwero Th-2 first ac<::usecl there:!"ore susp,?!ct..2d the 2pp<=.·:.J ·:nt of having planted the mon2y in th-:: drawer. The appE:!llant was follow,;d :.·xl found \vi th 2n,)th0r Slls. 200/= tuc:l::,~d in his socko i,11 0 th~ Shso ~00/= in curr~ncv not~s jor~ the numb2rs Jreviously record~d by the d,)t..::ctivcs., The app llant and the firs·:: accused 1,-.;,;;r,= thus arrested ~nd jointly ch2r~2d. !n c0urt, the oppullant explain~d th:.t he was gi V...;n the. 200/= by th,: fir.st accused f··>r clv:nging. Th0 lenrncd trial magistrate rlj~ct~d ns li •s the cvidencn of Gervas th~t h2 had pe~sonally given the mo~cy t, th~ first accused or at all., ;-r.:: SL' .culc::1.t(0d th,1t C,..)rvas had gi·Je. th.::: mo,·t·2y to th,· upp\.:1.l,"J.nt to plant it on th.~ first accus2d 2nd whil-J on th~t mission the appellant decid,,~d t ·, ku..:" 200/= for him-;,;lf o Th·.:rc 1--!2s ,,vie.knee of a grudge -c· between Gcc.riJ.S ,\; .d thi:: first ,:-iccusedo The forme:r had previously b1.::..2n dismissed ~rom ~1atex on a ru~ort ~f th~ latt~r. On this

evi!enc~ the acquittnl of U1e first accused was sound H~ d0 :snot seen to h2ve 0 been awar~ of wh~t Gcrvas and the appellant w0re u9 too N(.;V,.:rth,.:l ,,~s, should the, aD9c•lJant ha.ve b :::n convicb:.:d of ar,y offence? It all dencndcd unon t~~ circumntanc~s in which he came by the money. rli:: 0\-m story was th2t he! g0t it from the first accused. The trial cnurt found, and quite corr~ctly in my view, that Gervas did not give n.ny r.::.:_ ·--~Y t~> thr:: first accus-2do The L1tter 9 th~r0.fore, could not. have given rnon2y to the appellant for h: had no money to giveo Th8 only alt,:::;:·n:ctiv.~, as sp-2cul,ltcd hy thQ tri 1}. mc:::.gistrc'.te, _: · th,·:t the appellant 0:t tl1~ money from Gerv2so How0v~r, G0rvas cat12g0rically denied to h2vL! giv n the money to th: appe112nt. Th~t was th~ casi..! for the prosecution 2nd by that case the pros cution was boundo It is therefor(~ a myst,,ry how th(::! appelJ ·-rn:~ cc1me to possc,ss the rno'."l•2y and from whom };)e o,:J::1incd it. By rc;:;son of thi~, my;ot ry it is, inde,2d, dif:Zicult tG say that h;.; obtain(~d th,= in<x~r)y corru,Jtly or even by false prct,-::nccs_. There ca:1n---t lx, J~als,~ prct-2nc-~s unl,_,ss th,:.:r.:0 i:, o. p;'~rson to whom the prc~tenci..!S , -,:: 1n,de. Th-.~re was no such person h-.ere. A reasonable doubt had thus 0.rir:c:1 whic:·1 sh;_)UlJ hav<= prompted thl! c1ppcl:i.ant 1 s acquittal. For th-~~ r~Bs ,ns I find th0t th~ app~~l2nt's conviction was not sound in lD.1-,1 ., I will ;;c,:ordinqly ,,llo,J thf 2._nr, ,:::1 convicti~no I ~~11 ~lsc s~t ,side t~~ o~~o- y .. ~r :-rob·· ion ordcr~d s qunsh the said arid a,;:;2i ,t ._,, :,· -·,, > -.nt. ' 1<-:·;,,-·:r:-1:/ci'..;:::~:: 11\:i_:-{ 1 , · ;;..0-!..0l~.~ 3 I J.v I 77 o