19701228 TZHC Mwanza
1 Otfl. ptmji o. OuTsTwoad puU ssol ot. 2uTqj.T wpe ioctct jo 000Td o UT oloarl uo. posnooe oqr pd DM314 pn014S ott ust. Souoiii 010W ptsd 'osstw Jq 1DT4 q.stq pus oioos oT41. io; s q.-nuptmoa9 3 uT A q 0011 oti tXOtTM —/oostts 30 otot4s ot. pozo no ot potdox txs11odd 014q —/00cI° 1T° IU0 P 0 tt ooq 149120 otp,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19701228 TZHC Mwanza
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 28 December 1970
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
No structured case brief is available yet for this judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 Otfl. ptmji o. OuTsTwoad puU ssol ot. 2uTqj.T wpe ioctct jo 000Td o UT oloarl uo. posnooe oqr pd DM314 pn014S ott ust. Souoiii 010W ptsd 'osstw Jq 1DT4 q.stq pus oioos oT41. io; s q.-nuptmoa9 3 uT A q 0011 oti tXOtTM —/oostts 30 otot4s ot. pozo no ot potdox txs11odd 014q —/00cI° 1T° IU0 P 0 tt ooq 149120 otp, A11.1 oq. so pooixo.ut utoq u( 'ooq t 2 120 ot UT uM0149 so _/oo -. stTs ou ptm —/000strs pts so posnoos otp q12Uq. ptmoj pus IOttOfl0A uowsd Dtfl. 30 Jdoo s ooto o xoqoodsut oAtqsxod000 oij os op oq. poto; oi 4otoos quoioct ot. wox; pozt000x ttnowo D IT, TO .00dsox txt xottono/. quowi.sd oonpoxcI o. pose pus pot000xddo Sam posnoou ot. uot 69'9o1 110 Sq.OTOOS OAt0IOdQ03 TTC UMAn 2,hT W0XJ —/QO 011 0 p9ATDOOI P1214 014 TUTIT ttx) N OOq tsoo orq. ut poioquo paq posnoos ot putLOj OH 69?1 110 ( qotoos ot jo sq.un0000 etp1. p000to (d) 'x000dsuT D\q12x9dO00 o jcl2H '0110 UOI4M po10A0091p OSM OCJ sTTtJ. (tDYd) ioxpuj woxj p i000x ot -'-/000stts O-qs 30 —/oocr°tts Sl uo 10A0 pOpUOI4 p120110013 OtTOr I0A0 V uTpueq 111 "c.oqqtwuioo 914 30 t1ou1ItottO ot. oq. suoumoop utqtzn0000 qus/oox fl12 p us p waTT Ut 149130 0T14 IDAO pttot o. paq posnoos ot. pus p0000 oq 0 )1314 094TU1W03 MBU S qU0Oc1cT12 9tJ IOUOW 9T4. JO dt000x tD.JS 1Vsp If 0tX0W ou tqtxo ' jo jdTOODa &UtpOT1'0tD312 USTI9dd12 Dq. Jq pOU3tS ST ,100 T O T pus i so xnoo ot. o. poonpoId SOM aoqorioA jugw S ed o unows otij. JO IuOW — pO1M0 tt)012 UT TuPTTodde 914. S q PDUTS pus xoxnssorL ot. Sq pexsdoxd ooi !~ unowe 9tt4 103 a oqanoA qU9W12d S Souow UtPt1S14 U] 0 T 00 S S1 5 PT oq. Sp T sqns I121UI0t1 JO I12d se 14S0 —/000?°stI2 P0511000 DU. 0. PDPUO14 (1M'cI) oT4oqs) M0IpUf 0110 ' i 0 TO 0 9AT.S.IDd(-03 tI 13UJn&fl2tI JO xoxnseox Oq. 69-9-01 110 S14 q00330 otq oq. 90 U 9 PT. 9 PDT uotj.rt9osoId e qj quaoqej UT 9T sxo.x12nbp12et4 osoii PVI 4o-too 9tT.121OCl0 —03 TIOU tLS JO qoueaq s S T otsos 0T14J •toqoxoos s so e-9 9ZM prr qDt00 DAtSxDd0-03 SaMaej s - sp Aq psoidwo 001 p00110012 0T4J 99OU0ttDS 1)110 SU0T.0TAU0O 914g. SUT1212 ifl0O STtfl. oq paIsoctds 91214 °: ou0w14sTUTld 1oxodxoo So30xqS oqnqs.s 9t1j. x03Jn0 o SOM j ue -CTDJdu 911q PUS puoixnouoo tenI oq. poisplo b lam S00U9U9 0Aq0DdS12x qu9tUuosTadTT SUOW i7 1)115 stfl.uow 6 o. poOtzSqUDS pUS 'DpOQ lOUOd Dtfl. JO IL? 1t0 9? ss/o queAaDc, Sq PuT T eq pue (o)LI 9/0 utmt00012 9s TsJ .U9T11Pfl12xJ. JO pB0TAU00 PUS 14TM p8212qO SSM i.uSIIedds 9qT 2000 STt4. u •f•J 'JMZ11II ---------- I JNml o cmf r •9D03 11211 .0$J0 I 1 pU c9? B0 0 u12Ax9 iq Ut0D Ufl03 Pu? kri5sb0 UttInO00S 9S5j US - TtpnSxJ - ospoD ieu .UT103 -I DWHD VW (0) (.xoqto9soxd\x0)TtflT0dSlrH. • S S • SS • • • S • • U '3I'IfldI i-IJ 9119194 (0p9snoo TJo.)iMrrIdd ' VrHaDES @ oa o/s ':IJ'12AUeSflI12MW'hIf0X0J0E sxoqs o otxsct sxoqej, 30 1fl03 .0t19cE OIfl. JO 6961 3° c9°N 0S123 ISUTWTI3 1 5 TtTTx0 oL6i ffo 06o& rIddrT rp:rNIWIH3_ . •Uot.0tpstXnr e.e11odd . zwi.,1w J ('xsTe 4.0T1STI e. ix) IffZNL t0 1Ifl03 HOIH RHI NI T -2- money. The chit was produced as cxh 5. In his defence in the lower court the accused said ho only received shs.1500/— and that he by mitake signed the payment voucher acknowledging receipt of shso2000/—. The Republic argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. : Looking at the totality of the evidence I do not think the learned magistrate came to a wronc. conclusion. There is the evidence of the co—operative inspector who chocked accused accounts ad to whom the accused admitted the shortage. What is more the appellant wrote a chit accepting responsibility for loss of the mOilcy. There is evidence of the payment voucher showinG that he did * receive shs.2000/— from P,,,l and not shs.1500/— as he would like the court to believe. If the appellant received only slis.1500/— from the treasurer and not shs.2000/=; and ho had by mistake signed for shs.2000/= how comes it that the same accused admitted to the inspector (P..2) that he had again .iby mistake, paid out more money to farmers (when buying groundnuts) than what he should have paid. This is what he told the inspector as the cause of the shortage of the shs.500/—. cousod's defence that he received only shs.1500/7 from P.W.l is diamotrially opposed to his admission to P..2 that he had by mistake paid out more money to the farmers. The two contradictory statements coming from the same accused are certainly inconsistent with innocence. - The learned resident magistrate was entitled on the evidence to 7 coma to the conclusion that the accused received shs.2000/— from P..l and his failure to account for the shs.500/— can only be interpreted that he stolo the money. His entering sks.1500/_ in the cash—book instead, of entering shs.2000/— does amount to fraudulent false accounting. I agree with the Republic that the appcl against conviction is without substance. s far as the sentence in count two is concerned there was no evidence that the society was a registered society under Cap.211 apart from the word of P.1.l that the society was a registered society. The Minimum Sentences Lot is a penal 4ct of far—reaching diamontioris; andlik all penal Lcts,its provisions must be strictly construed. The only evidenc that will prove that certain society is a registered society is productic. in court of the registration certificate of the said society. fs no certificate of registrotion was produced in respect of Liala Co—operativc Society it is not possible to say that the society was a registered society under Cap.211 of the laws. This being the position corporal punishment is inapplicable. The appellant can only be said to have committed siple theft insofar as count two is concerned. • 'ooxcitttrt pi w uDSq'3 pthtdor 'oiqndog ot. Io ?Jt o7pn U'O7 • i) LF oL6i 'oqu1000 jo ip DTq. qtnoQ UI pDIOAçO ojquDzrrlouoo tmt oq. Dap SOOU0UD9 C oJ 3EtIothUoo JO iOpIO OL14. ST Oc pu_s ot otto qunoo UI uowuostidiut stjuow 6 ;o oouoquos ot •i;:TttO uo otiduit stjquow 9T JO OttO O pot.IOA $1 UOWtttlCL 1iodioo sooxq.o pue qtxowuosidw Jo DOttOUOS•Ot OSOO OU JO oonç c. oow w ut pnoM qtI0wuot3IJCIuTt utjuow 9T ;o oout4ttoo iDptzO;j0 SiIJ s SI qUS[DdCI' OLfl. OTfl. qtm000a oq.trç 3utSj