19710510 TZHC Mwanza

U5OU 'UOTflOOSOJd O UipJOOOs CST Lb Isd OU s -31A 3GIcoIdL3 @uo qsqq. pus sooicoidui@ jnoj pçsd iUO qus9dds' sq. J)LjDflOA u3uIAsd pu000s ouj uo poii oss psd ou oai sooicoiduxo OATJ 5[fl. PUS SGIJ5{SS JTO4 PGAT990J sooico1duio UOOqXIS AIuo oqorto-uowAsd srçj oqq. uo qsq. Selo, LToiqnoosoJd oqq. JoJ 0550 sotusu oiJ aT92.A J onoA-quomc2d pu000s OL uo ico- ctuxo JOSOUISU [ GJOL JoqorIoA U9ffliGd srçj uo .rroqq. pisd oq oq sooKscl ouj Jo sotasu upoqs sioqonoA auouiA&d o popus 05[S ssa oij V989fl°N d000 pouis oq Rouoa: siuj JO cuoupopouos U1 sooicoiduo oqqo aoJ 15[ss /T9 7LT5 S5IA WflS JOLflO OU UG[JLOU0& LII fr999fl'°N dioDo pouis oq oj rouno ou Aq poiVOiduio soqosoq aoJ S J5[SS5 9/9sqs 'iouom Jo sums 0h4 soqsnbpsoq uouuoo oqq tuoJj p00000 qusodds Oq. 89/1/9 UO :as sjiOUnoD o 501j5109 Lsd o posnuo OSIS ss oq onuoio jo uom.00uoo OAoqe PU 'uoiscAIp.-qns 5IoS5i; 35 pouo&qs SSIL OL qJOq PO016' Gq JO OUII. oqq. j J040o1100 OUUGAOJ S qOIJIJSI([ siss JcOL poAo[daio SSM. usTTodds oqw :sioijoJ JcSflO - JOs qou oxs qoq sosJ oq 'sJoqJsuopsojj icuno oTJq.sI siss s sossoq sçq cq dn potuSJJ SSia OL{ Sq SGUJ& OJ.J 'couotii Jo flflOU5 poo[[s Gq. [5OS ou pçp o sq sXss oq [oJds Jo urnpusJoulow siq UI rao0 sçqq oq po1sodds ssq oq oouo.uos pus q0pJGA oqq q;TIA poJsçsssgj po sJsoi Qç oct oq poSUO0soL puno; oq0Jqsi&ffl 1sTI oqq. ss popJsiA& q0u S5i1 UOURTSTUnd isJodJo0 oauoSJdUaç ssoRg o poououos pus opo isuod oqq JO 0L'PU 5 C93 SUOT09S O JcJ5JUO0 USAJOS 0[qfld iVq LTTI5G JO pGq0AUOO pus qq.p posto ss spns qaMuiS 6usTiodds Oti •f• V 'SAVZNII •imr 5UOJ Ot4. JO 999 pus Q/J S/0 'U 5 AJO8 QTTqrLd Rq uçso 'EDqfl0oSOJ 1&LJo)JIaIGMOdftU ° DIi9Ii1d'd RHI SUSJOA (poSuD0T I 5uiIJO)J& Vlrlgddj °VUflDtTS 0/s ITii\[TS qoTJ4sI[ 'os suquçn 0J0JO 5ISS: S 0IJST 5iVSSp[ JO qInOQ0iJ5i OLfl. JO O6I JO 29oOiq OSSO ISUTtUIJO 1'T 10 ?0/61 dIO 629°ON TddV IJmc!1L\tIHO UOTqOTPSTJnf 0SIT0dCLr JV VEMNvil dO diflOO HDIII RHII NI • - - - -- - - -2-- of six employees amounting to shs.181/45 were not paid and as such the accused should have returned the money to the Council as unpaid salaries. This 9 it was alleged 9 he did not do. On 2/1/69 the treasirer of the Council (P,i02) checked accused s accounts and fodnd that he had only shs.5/-- in his cash-box. He proceeded and checked payment vouchers ho1 by the accused and found them to sh that all the employees had been paid. He was suspicious about some of the signatures of the payees. This suspicion made the treasurer to investigct: the authenticity of the signatures which appeared doubtful, doubtful signatures were six in number and were shown as those of Masanja, Sebastian 9 Georgia Lumeck, Raymond and intony. Thc:. six employees were contacted and they all denied having received their salaries from the accused. The matter was reported to the police and the accused vras eentua1ly charged with stealing the money. "hat the appellant received a total of shs.8136/50 as salaries of teachers and other employees there- can be no doubt. Indeed the appellant acknowledged receipt of this money by signing his name in two receipts - Receipts Nos.U686445 and U686444 of 20/12/68. In his defence in the lower court the appellant did not deny receiving the money for the 26 employee-s but he put u the defence- that he did not count the money before he signed for it. He also told the lower court that after he had paid the salaries he found that there was a shortage and as such six employees did not receive their salaries. He said he reported this to the treasurer (P, 1W02) who told him not to bother. The trial rnagistrte in a care-fully considered judg- ment found this defence to be nothing but bogus. I totally agree with his conclusion. If there was a genuine- shortage as argued by the appellant how come that the payment vouchers showed signatures of the six employees acknowledging receipt of their salaries? The vouchers were at all the material time in the custody of the accused and the accused having argued that the six employees were not paid their salaries due te-- shortage of funds why should the payment vouchers show that the;j cec been paid their salaries? From the evidence there can be no doubt that accused's defence that he received insufficient funds from the Council was an after-thought. I agree with the Republic that the learned district magistrate's verdict is fully supported by the evidence-. .11 -s-- As for the argument by the appellant that there was no expert evidence to show that the six signatures were in bis hand- writing, I agree that there was no such evidence. But such evidence would only be necessary if the accused was also chargod with forgery. Such evidence was not necessary for the purposes of the charge of theft. To prove the charge of theft all that the prosecution had to prove was that the accused did not surrender to the Council the salaries of the six employees as uipaid salary. This the prosecution proved to the Court beyond all reasonable doubt; and the trial magistrate was entitled, on the evidence, to find the accused guilty of stealing by public servant, - The appeal a gainst conviction is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The sentence is the minimum prescribed S by law. A f- the compensation order I agt'ee with the ReiubItc that the compensation order should have been for shs'45 and not for shs.1853/45. The appellant is to pay to the CcunciI shs. 1866/45. Delivered in Court at Mwanza on 10th Nay, 1971. ACTING iUDt