19771216 TZHC Mwanza

!f(c :·tL.LL,.I'E JURISDIC'IlOl, ,iIGI: CClfr':I c:d"tINJ,L ;;PPEd, l;O 193 C? 1977 (Original Cri-nind C:,s'! Le. 685 of 1976 cf t.::-.e J;ist.cict Court of '~wanza J3EFO.hE .,_ :-. 'm'.11,Bi.ZI, ES._,. D. r. ==::==~==-:--=====================-· '"•·•·: : .... • • • 0 1-~PPELL1iNT versus 'l'HE REPUBLIC ... ,. • ., e " RE. SPOND.EN'!1 '11:F'i:LILli, J • : This appdl '-'g~.ir.st convictions in the tnre.-., counts has no -narit and dotild with ~dv~nta~s n_ve been su~tbriJ.y r~J~ctedo In t11.e District Court ::.:t 1~wa.r1za t11.e ::.::;-;clL,.t w2s charged with four counts n .. -n-::ly: u.tiering a f'E1lse docu-n::nt, . . t-ts'Ilpting to obtain goods by f0lae p~etences 7 ~jstroying avict~nce 0Li ~ssault causing actual bodily hc1r11. Be ,vos fcu.nc.. guilty on the first tnree counts and convicted but acquitted en tn" L,st count involving :.oss:.ult. I think that the trial 11agistr&te ;.-ncr.gl;y uc,.:juitted hi11 on ttiic.; ·Qcunt •• However, upon conviction-, he wc:rn s<:ritenc,'d on the first count tc- six 11onths i11prisonnent in the second cobint 1:" vF,D s::ntenced to thr2s 3,,:c;rs i11prisonnent and in the third count tc six 11onti1s iilprisom1ent" 'Ih 11_.gistrcte rightly ordered the first two coW'li.-s to run concurrsntly but consecutively to the sentence in the third count. The_ c5se 3gainst tlE appelLnt was straight fcrw:::rd. Liter paying Shs. 60/60 for one b2.g cf

c1.1icku, f.::2d tc ,~ S:.,l'3f.' Clerk libdul Selenan (Viv 3) at th•: Nc.tionaJ ·,rilling Corpor~.tioL, t.r1:: appelL.r1t wc:s given a receipt No. 8315• ~cccriing to procedure 1 t~~ appell~nt was to present this receipt to a clerk at the store where: he ~culd be given the bag of chicken fe~d og=inst itn But when the ~p~cll3nt pr~sented hinself to a Sales Clerk Lepnid~s (FW I) he prcduc~d t~is sa7e receipt but it then read Shs. 960/60 fer 16 bags of chic'.s:.::n f,:<:s1. 1,s the writing of this recaipt app0~re6 to h2ve been altered, L~cnidas ~sk~d the appellant to clecr it witn tne clerk who issued it 2nd ~~~n lat0r Leonidas insisted to take the c,ppslL.Lt t"c: the clerk conc"'rr1,:3. 1 i.n-, appcllsnt snatched the receipt fron hi,i .=inc:. put it in his 'llouth c,Dd r-roce:d,2d to chew it .. Leonidas struGgl~d witn tie appellant to r::trieve thG riceipt in the courae of whicn LL' tr,'"'s bitt'.:!n,. .-dth the .t1:lp of otner people who an~wered the distress c,.:.11 1 tr1e :c,ppslL,nt was subdu::J did pieces of the torn receipt recov~r~ci frc"'.l nis nouth. These w-rc: r:roduced at the trial as exhibits alcn 6 witn tr~E copies which prov',,. ccnolusively thc.1t the original receipt No. 8215 ,1hich was prestr.te:3. to .Leonidas had be2n altered 11akinL it~ false docu11ent~ The appellant denied tnese ~llegbtions L1.~ offered oxplan~tions which were sc irrc,tional tn:..,t tn-,y

could only b,. L,lse.. In any event, his own brother, Felicii.in Tobi:.Js ,-mo testified as::. dd,.:1.c,, witness said that he had sent the ,,ppellant_ to buy only one bc.g i:.D,' tiLt for this purpose,-he had given hi 11 Shs. 65/-c On the whole-, I ::..·n s.,tisfied -that the evidence given by the pros, 6ution w-itnesses once acct,pt d -::1s it was, conclusively 0 proved the offe-nces ch&rged in all the tr1rGe ccunts for which the app_e11ant was convicte~. The sentences which were i~pcs~d io not lecve any rob~ for intervetion by this cor,rt. In the ~esult I dii~iss this appeal. Delivsr~d in Court ;,.t '~wanza this 16th ::'.<," c1 Dec,cnber., 1977.. ~vil~NZL lp'l';; _l)? C; ':Ir, F J ,: 77 rm J:rinr L. ,,l'i . nun: ·renn