19730910 TZHC Mwanza2

p4V80xs eutqoop OAUT O UOT OO 'M StflUOW .noq? .30 pOt.xOcX 9tfl. .IflOO Tu - Eaq. oqq. iq 2UTPUTJ ELfl J) M9TA Ltt ToY S-M .1LItAi803J JOJ uorotAUoo s urrthT OTfl. tZL&IOO91 ptrJ tVE94 tpoq oq .set1Ithi uotssssod lu 9 oal Jo GtzLXioOp 9{ J - q.DLT14- &'wtu. UIJEeT. O. .t psix PE)-rTTw-P'P OtJM 91913rLC OtZ.Ie st p3odFs sttq. Ui uoti?utwxoq9p. I0J uoiqsnb iUo oLil 00U83J0 Sti JO WIt p9OTAU0O QIIU 0 p03 U9d 9T. JO (i)tt uoioo o nxuoo uos ueoq oiu eq t 53UTMOU31 Tjnq pEt?S 5. UTAT808.1 JO ?U0 tZO qut'OOo JO OIO Eflfl. .IOdcInS .ou pindo uoi'ssassod spesnooi aiq. ut' - puno S 16 M MitUU atio oj aqnJ aq PuP SSO atfl. 30Ut9 posde SlITAMI Stuow OM. qSt51 t O pOiJed at tq punoj xqst 1i.x peurce 0TIL SWf'O/M S 9 UW J9UMO pcJtquapr IcIdWSM tbttM 1iL/c/L uo o. Tjnq SIT.q. --ros o. pdwo OtPt tzosed IJA Etfl. Si UOTIaddV otq. et s -t2Ii pau.1t01 O[-Si Si poiJstqts qaojqT@tfl. Wu I • IOI.1O roT.xIo IL/9/9 q.OqqS XQ atfl tZO P - 1- 1TL/t7/9 UO ptUWO SM auajjo STt SO AZ U[ W1:t T),IiI0TJYO eAnOaXa'r. tij3 'tflWtU I'WO 1T16?, eT.fl tto szim q. Pt ?- tL6i JO 'L? Otfl. UaOM.aq .0 1et1 zqq MS S9SSU TM 3S8tt :T-Tv UOtSfl' JO WJ0J 0WOS 140.13 9UTIOJTrLS )Uft. OT -' ('cr)- r'uototj o/s.ntIepeIeoot.q.prn '(D'Md) pqj o/s •' ..j).otw o/s urwCuo .utjq .xo u119dcs quoso.1d otq SJZOt0t.1OSap SUOS Ot. UT.X8MStfl O?1[t-A UT S03tUflJ tMUO UtT.fl 0.10W gav paq. 7q Ss@Tun .xo uo uT eOUSqUS ou aq trOO a.xaq. iitvao etub 4.ng euosTad uT aur 9M 0t4 eSTtt?OOq aoUeJJo sttq. poquuioo 0A5t ... .OU pnOo &t. St pIecICIU JO UflOJ UOW . Ut110d(P5- 0T4 • 5d.±14 . 91. 0. p8OU0U9S St?M all iOitIM .103 9WtJ t2 q.XflOQ S9'5JSI2 - 0 q Od'JT 9I sutTh peJaua apo tU9d JO uotoes oq. .IJtZOO 04i?O U 0 I 0 S tziAT8o0.1 .103 U0tOiAU0O 0fl. I-svTv2v 1taddv tfl3 Si STq — 'TqTTJ awoanr (.1d.noasOd .TUt?tJo) - . . -. -- •. . -. U8 pU0dS911 QOj0UJ r - SflSI9A (pesnooi' Ieui?i.1o) S S •• •••S •S • • •• 0 tm1 1 .tMW 9x1.srJJ uapTsaU bs '0550.10)1 10 •j 1 ewtz T3 qOI.IqSt IO JO Ifl03 qoT.IqSt 01.4 JO L6i JO 9 ON 9s23 !UTLtT.1D TtUTTJO .L6i- JO 6:oN .tddV tuTwo uorqoipsiJn - -- - VZNVMW - - - /- - VINVZNVJ O JHflOD I-IDIH HLL NI 2 If my understanding of this iyrrec't, the implication clearly is that if the doctrine cannot support a finding of stealing, it cannot equally support a f±iLiig ofreceiving. Mr. Rahim, the learned State Attorney, who aeared on behalf of the Republic appeared to support this view. this is a novel proposition, for although the doctrine of recent.possession can support in appropriate cases findings of stealing or receiving, thisdoes not mean that the apt licabilit' (f the dôtrtho is coextensive to both offences. By its ver' ture, stealing is directly related to the source whereas recoiv±ng is not, so tht the passage of time diminhe théirfèfehcC of teaiihg ihorë quck1y th'n that of receiving with the result that -bhere are in effect two time limits which gradually merge into each other., one with which. an iforence of theft can be made and this merges rudually into the period which can only support a finding dfreoeiin Thib'bbifr'&ein turnears cfr until you arrive at poiit where no inference can be made, each case depending bn the nature of the article in question. I am fortified in this viw by the existing authorIties which recognize this distinction. In Shabani s/o Juma v. H. (1953) 2CEACA 119, the accused had been chdr ht'1h' Y dwe'llilig hOuse with intent and stealing 1 thô nly ovience against him being that two months later the accusecl was seen wearing some of the stolen articles, a pair of shorts, a kanzu anc. a .pair, of hces. The trial judge considered two months rathert&"l 4'-to raise a presumption against the accused on the chirges of entering and stealing, found him not guilty of these offences 1 but co±ivicted him of receiving stolen goods. The Court of Apreal diomissing this preal remarked. "Even in the case of receiving, we think an interval of two months in tao case of articles such as these not too t'ong apreUmption ag.dinst the appellant." In an old English case dobided as lông ago as 1918 AVORY:, J.sawad recognized the distinction, he therefore directed the jury , as follows: "Possession so long afterwards: 1:5 not sufficient: evidence of,stealingi you had better• conviCt of ±'e.ceiving." .: • (referred. to in note 4 it the foot of page 446 KENNY's OUTLINES OF CRIMINAL LAW 13TH ITiON). In the instart case £ am zatis±"od that the learnod. trial Mitrate was justified in his a licetion of the doctrine to the offence of rivihg for I ttiink that cattle easily fall into the category of Lreadj ly arti.cls which /rAts frci 1nd to hanc esiecially in a cattle rearing area such to Trmc. The appellant won.refore properly Convicted and Sentenced. His appeal is dismisscr. Dëliered.iri Court at MWafiâ this Wth day of Septémber,. 1973.