19711001 TZHC Arusha2

1$flW.7110 CUUIt, OP ?AWZJKI* AT AR14)1A I Ai' r M' .-AL 7M. 292 0' 1971 OI1CIikL CRflhI$A. Ci 0. 24$ O! 1971 OP TRIS DLuC'r CCMT 010 311TRICT AT B store C.LL. EM6A'VI, Ditriot Majistrats AFV.LI 13/0 OLCU & 9 (R .......,,. Nc veretia Iji LtIJ'dAjIC 01. /iC C1TCB On CTh Rtot ooirety to sections 74, 75 •net 76 of the Psn1 Code. 11 U - K : - P4'LL, Ag. J. - The ten appellants wro convicted o the tffotoe of 'diut' oontraxy to sootionx 749 75, and 76 of Pial Code before the Diatrict ..ae and ocb was sentenced to an iiprihoment for nine senthof ow they appeal against both conv..cttcn and eunteace. Kr. J. . Fat, al advocata of Courtat Xenhi spuared for all appellants. In pars 5 of their memorandum of aeaI it is a11oed that the charge wa nt roadover to t u appo1lnto 4o. 1. to 10 bwt apalnt lb. 1 waoaeked by trial iatjIstrato if be steyed at Ziti ohe Hwigtz a nd h4 said yen and thereafter the trial eaiotrate entered the pica of guilty for all appellanto wtbout aakin arzythin -to other apoiicntu and eentonoed woh to nine raontha impriuionmenl and tne p1eu are illegal ant not acovedinj to 'c a law. Th-.s courniol for the appellente *ibmitte.i that the trial. msgistrete'n Ju.lgaertt be set aside and aoa1 be allowed. flH t'11rthor subeitted that the fao'ts etated by the proeeoutor bet era trial ourt do not cosply with the ruajrea*nta of 1*'w unier 340tibA 74 of the -ena1 Code. The learned Stet* Attorney aad all apps..lants pleaded guliy to the ofonoe of 'Riot' contrary to section 74 4f the tenal 3ede before trial magimtrate after the Charge wan readover to thee. Ite said their ploax is uneuivcoal and the appeal on i* grouni is is.-ooapstant. Ootngthe record of trial court it is clear t at the charc was reed- ovar to all eppallrnrte and ttsraafter each of then pleaded In clear tcrm. i-hey are 'sa fo1±owa- "1 asseabled teere unla'wf ally n'4 ccsitcd the *ssault." ihn after a plea of geiliy was entered nd f*ota were atted by the prose- cutor to wbtcb oaoh of the appellants said "Ysoto are oorrsot." Then only the tritl magistrate found thu* guilty wid proceeded to oonviøt thee. Thun according to the record of the trial court, the procedur'a adopted was correct and the appollents were corrsatly convicted. I haveaoen to doubt tiw record and cerreotnese of the record and I accept it an it is. Thsre is no dcubt that the piSa of all app#L4Bta was uneaivooa1 and all were correctly oonvet*d. Th•re is no merit in this ground ttnd the appoel against conviction is dismissed. Kr. Patel further eubeitted that the ueriteoe of nine mentha i€npx'inorine' Is heavy and ehoiA& be r*duoed cc to result in the immediate release of the a#pO1Lnt. ft acid they cerve &entence since 11th June, 1971. The offence was ooitted in a pombe club. The appellants an a gronp fought others at the pombe club. Conaldsrtng cllciroumstanoes of the cane I find thv cetece of nint mattk4t imprironert is eanifestlr eeeivo, I think a sontones of four monthu is quite edeuuto. I accordingly order that the •.nteco of imprisonment for nine months is reduced to a torn of imprtao.*snt for four sonthae, eliverd in court thit. let day of Cctob.r, 1971 in. ?reaent of J.. Pali Advocate for the appelLante and State Attorney. (J.. PA?2)