19760507 TZHC Mwanza

liT T iT(TI COURT OP TANZANIA iT 11tiZ COURil CRILTIUL J2I NO. 420 OE,1974 Original Criminal Case i'o. 785 of 1972 of the District Court of Bukoba Dstric at Bwoba, Before o .R. iTrarnba, Esq., Re sd. I:Iag. SOSPETER I!LLRCO . , . . . . . . APPELLANT Versus TIPE RE?UELIC............O.......RESPONDENT JiJDGIU:'T LUG.MI NGIRd, J.: The arpeliant was caught almost rod-handod in the course of house broa.ing ancL stealing. I-is was seen, together with another person who successfully escaped, inside a dwelling house whose occupants were then out. It was daytime, about 6 p.m. The police, were discreetly called while a watch was kept on the house. As the police were about to arrive at the scene the appellant jumped out of the house through the window and took to heels with his colleague who was standing outside. The appellant was chased and apprehended. Back at the house it was found that ingress had been obtained by breaking a window. Outside the house were two gunny bags full of items taken from the house - bedsheets, a radio, blankets, shoes, etc. The appellant was accordingly charged and convicted of housobrcaking and stealing. He was awarded four years on the first count and one year on the second, the sentence rrnrning o oncurrontly. Apart from denying the offoncos saying ho was apprehended while on his lawful business - the appellant maintained at his trial, and now in his memorandum of appeal, that he had previously L been charged with the same , offences and acquittod. The trial magistrate found as a fact that the appellant had. indeed been charged with the same offencos but that the charges were withdrawn under s. 86 (a) of the Criminal Procodure Code. That was no bar to subsequont proceedings on the some set of facts. I accept the finding of the magistrate that the appellant was not acquitted as he had the oppostirnity to peruse the previous procoodings in Criminal Caso Nc:. 195/71. As already pointed out the appellant was caught almost red- handed and it is those who caught him that testified at the trial. There is therefore no merit in the appoal. I em also disinclined to interfere with the 4-year sontonce on the first count as it was imposed on merits. In the result this appeal is dismissed in its entirety, A Uk MWAITZA K. S .K. LUGGIRA KIb I' 7thiJIAY,1976: J U D G E