19700513 TZHC Dar es salaam2

Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Summary rejection (s. 317) IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM APPELLATE JURISDICTION 78&79 70 GRIMINAL APPEAL No.. l36. ................ OF .19...... 69 Original Crirrj1a No ............................ . ... jcjbo1J 19......of the District . lkemwa before...................................................Esq., Resident Magistrate/District Magistrate. OLRI3HURI . .................................................................... Appellant (Original Accused) ........................................................................... j versus THE REPUBLIC ........................................ . ..................................................... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Cattle theft contrary to section 268 and 265 of the Penal Code. JUDGMENT/O R14LYN J. in this case it is quite clear that the manRashidi towhom it is alleged theappellants sold the cow, alicId have been called. The omtssion to øall him as a witness makes the whole case against the two appellants a weak one Learned Counctl for the Eepublic doea not seek to support the conviotion. *I appeals are allowed and the two appellants are to be,*eleaeed forthwith unless in custody on any other áharge e- SGD. 0. T. H.MLYN, DO& éeSalaain JUDG1i. 8.5 P Dm 15134/10.07/2m now / k Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court under Sstion 352 of the Criminal Proedurc Cole). Summary rejection (s. 317) 1/ / IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM / APPELLATE JURISDICTION 69 70 CRIMINAL APPEAL No...... ................OF 19.... .. 18 69 Original Criminal Case No ........................................... of 19......of ICiiwa Kilwa the Distrii Cout of............................District at............................................................ •. zi )isele before...................................................Esq., Resident Magistrate/District Magistrate. XKX1t1XRXXAX KatInda ialeIe,..................................................Appellant (Original Accused) versus THEREPUBLIC . ......................................................................................... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) Stealing by servant c/a 271 and 265 of the renal Code. CHARGE: JUDGMENT/d'I1 R&MXIYN $ 3. There is no merit whatever in this appeal, The trial magistrate very carefully examined the matter of the three sums of money alleged to have boon paid by accused. The appellant admitted the theft of the sum charged to two separate witnesses who were called by the prosecution, There being no merit/ in this appeal, it is domissed in its entirety. •Dar es Siaam. 13th Nay, 1970. * JUDGE. 0 P Dsm 10224/12-65160m/4up