19780400 TZHC Dar es Salaam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA at Mwanza / Jusha APPELLATE JURISDICTION / HIGH COURT CRI1VIINJL APPEJL No. 149 of 1977 c/f HIGH COURT CRIMIN/41 £PPEAL No.150 OF 1977 (Original Criminal Case No. 260 of 1976 of the District Court of Dar es Salaam District at Kivukoni) BEFORE: S.C. BYABUSHA, Esq. Resident Magistrate 1•...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19780400 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1978
- 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA at Mwanza / Jusha APPELLATE JURISDICTION / HIGH COURT CRI1VIINJL APPEJL No. 149 of 1977 c/f HIGH COURT CRIMIN/41 £PPEAL No.150 OF 1977 (Original Criminal Case No. 260 of 1976 of the District Court of Dar es Salaam District at Kivukoni) BEFORE: S.C. BYABUSHA, Esq. Resident Magistrate 1• JOSEPH KI1ILNGA ). . . . . . . . ........ . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .LiPPELIANT S 2. HAMISI MASHAKA ) ( Original Accused) versus t'rffmTrr1 mLrD .LL1.La £11.r'LJ.DU.L.'j e • • • • RESPONDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: Corrupt Transaction - contrary to sections 3(1) and 3(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1971. • JUDGMENT/ORDER BIRON, J. - The two appellants who were together charged on three counts; with corruptly soliciting 'shs.15,000/— from one Bakari Lhraedi Juma, corruptly receiving shs.9 9 0001— from the same Bakari Juma and with corruptly receiving on another date shs.3,0001— from the said Bakari Juina, were acquitted on the first and second counts but convicted on the third count, and they were each sentenced to imprisonment for three years. Theyare now appealing and their appeals are consolidated. In this judgment I am retaining the descriptions of the appel- lants as they were described in the lower court, the first • accu.aed being a police detective constable and the second accu.s- sed, • a police constable. The evidence against the accused can briefly be summarised in. cr.ono1ogical sequence as follows: iassim Gu.Llan Husein (PN.2) who described himself as a taxi driver employed by Bakari Jthmedi Junia (Pw.6) to whom I •..... * 2/.... ... ... will refer to in this judgement simply as Bakari, testified to the effect that on the 7thof March, 1976 at about 6a.m. when he was sitting in his vehicle which was stationed at the Mmazi Mmoja bus stand, the two accused arrived in a police vehicle. The first accused came out of the police vehicle and approached him asking whether the vehidle. he was in belonged to him and he replied that it was not his. The first accused then told him to take them to where the owner of the vehicle lived. The first accused thereupon entered his vehicle whilst the second accused remained in the police vehicle. He then drove his vehicle with the first accused sitting in it followed by the second accused in the police vehicle. He drove them to Bakari's house in Swahili Street. He knoked at the door of Bakari's house and Bakari answered and came outside. He heard the two accused identify themselves to Bakari as CID officers and they said that they sus- pected his vehicle the witness was driving, and asked to see its registration card and, Bakari produced a registration card. They then told Bakari to accompany them to the police station. He asked whether he was needed and they said that he was not, and that he could go. He saw them drive off with one of the accused in Bakari 9 s vehicle which he hadbeen using as a taxi, Th whilst the other accused followed them in the police vehicle. The story is then taken up by Bakari himself. He described him- self as a transporter owning a vehicle as well as a saloon car, which he used as the taxi being driven by Kassiin, the witness referred to. Bakari explained that he had bought the taxi which bore the registration number TDX 434 from one Samuel Omunde who was apparently from Kenya. The vehicle in question then bore the number KAS 292, which is a Kenyan number. The seller of the vehicle Samu.elOmundë wanted sh8.20,000/- for the vehiàle, and he handed him shs.15,0001-. as a down payment, and he was to pay the balance of shs..5,0001- in two week& time, when the seller would return from Kenya with the registration card. The seller, .0 ..../3 - - ..SSS I • OtT OSclOt] BcTTUT 8IOM S3t. U8 urctt rnOx UO3MI. eq pTnom p'atl eq çtR1xoi.o pUB OOt]8!. Otf qBtfl. £soouorlbesuoD eitp xo; UOT5B8IdXO D3TbOTTO0 B sT tTOtttM ',,,Tun3jewoqumTjD eas,,PTnOm Ot PTBS Vetfl q.BTLq. UInS Btfl O9TBI qou PT° @Tj Snptms e SeM q.T Sc qeTjq. tuet. pOq. Jq 1 .9auoui OLJq. tttOtfl. GATD OO- POOB am '-/OoO'Ott q1oqB xo; pess OMnt pynoi Ro 6 ue -cpuT UB uooq pq ot ;t zo; ot1x;y MQTTO.J P s8m otT asreoeq PTUTT Os st sotthox %XtOt qq. utpp '-/000'cr'tts uotq. OAB Oi ;T 'I19TO °'- UT WTtt qnd ETquamdd-a PTn0M LTOItTM 690TTod otn. peq.nsuoo pitj OtT Oe;;O ei. oq. quovxnoop B urttj UTA2 icq urtj q.s -rssn pino ROtt. sueotx;r MOTTOS OXO1A Roq. SB qB. ptis cetj vrctl oq. mec. q.triozq PBtT qetTq. quq4. Slem q PUB eTotttoA OLTq. oq p'ei tqtMouop PBtT eq BtJA eemi Rot SB JczxoM oq. qOU Wt] PTO Ret OTOtttOA STTT u )oBq OtUBO toq rj x-çeq. trtxtd tO7 OTOTttOA. eOTTOct at UT pasnoo8 PtT000S a-qq. Aq P9WOTTO3 TuBTt11M O T oAOIp Ott Pula OTOTtTOA Stt Oq.Ut 4.09 poSi-ioo SXT o'qj ttl° iIT 0 tt 3tXI3c Oq. TUBTt1( O. O oq. popeeu RotT. pIBS Req. u014E45 oo -rTod aLTq. oq. DuToD exo;eq q.xi 'UOTquq.R 00 -nod ottq. o. OTOTttOA 9tT. tt0rTM UJOtT. JctXBdW000B pnotts Ott pu Vpoq. —STrO itOtq. UT O 513M Ot w- 5 T urctt Aq pesr uoTssoxcIxO OT qsOcxB xopun Eq.UeIBdCTB SBM et etq 'SIe0TJO OOTTOcT 0.XOAA A'otq. twctt PTOq ROt U0T Bt.ST0t B UXOtt. POMOttS aq pu 0SriOtt STtt oq. qtfoLxq pULT UrçSSB) qoçTTM eToTtto4 OLT. xoqo mitT UTUOTBOb peq.z.s iceTfl U1Ttt OOMB SO14 PUB DUTUaOm 97q. UT RTIBe SBAA T STTBntt 019 pesr30B OMq. 3tt. ttqM 8SOtT STtT .B P0ATbLXB WTGaO)1 9L6T 6 tt0 tBW ;o tnL oq. ;o hrtuxom 0-4q. tTO qBq. OOUOpTAO S,MTSSBX pOULIT3UOO. Ofl o. pOXO;OI RpBarp (A) mtSeB) Rq ue -cxp OuTaq SBM OTOTttOA otp L6T xeqttiooe JO tfl90 Otfl. mOI3 SB OS qi Jutsii peqtIoS PUB B SB Ott LTOTttM OT0ttte/. ;;o ue -rs7;o SOJ3Td xoqwnu etfl, qnd ueq. OH OUtOU 5 Ttt oq. peIte;sue.x. OTOItTOA etfl. PBtT 9tT OtetM OOTJJO OVUOAOH TBtLIOUI etfl. O. ZB0 UOTjnaq.ST9Oa ot OH 'IB0 uo B4s -çeI S.T pUB jjo ueq4TxM ueeq PBtt ttOTttM OTOrttOA B pexirnboB tT0t °H 5 ewTq. OtUOS xO; OSlI jo qxio peUTBmaI ITO - UtTm OTOTttOA ott ttq.M J°T Sem ott pu 'oq OUiBo X0A0U d aaAamoV 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 4 . 0 • • • • 0 • • told them that all he had was shs.5,000/-, which he handed to them and they divided the money between them, on the spot. Before leaving him they told him to pay the remaining shs.10,0001- by the following day, when they would give him a police document to the effect that the vehicle was no longer subject to police investigation. And on that note the accused left. On the following day they both turned up just after 10 oclo& in the morning, and asked him whether he was 9 ready. He asked them for the document which they had promised and said they had brought. He produced h.4,000/- and showed them his bank book and told them that all he had left was sh.44/60. They took the sh.4 9 0001-.. 9 and said that they would give him the promised docu- ment when he paid up the balance, because as he was a lVlswahili he would most likely not pay the balance of shs.6 9 0001- once he had obtained possession of the document. Before leaving, they asked him to let them know the day they could return for the balance. They also asked him how he would raise the money, and he said he would have to go to Mafia to seek aid. They enquired when he would leave for Mafia and return. He told them that he intended going on the following day that was a Tuesday, and would return either the following Tburâd.ay or Friday, and the two accused left. He then consulted his conscience to quote him verbatim: "I then consulted my conscience and decided the two were not good and could not do what they purpoted they could otherwise they should have given me documentary evidence on the vehicle. I left for Central Police CID and requested to see their in-charge. I insisted to see the offi- cer in-charge. I was taken direct to Hashid (PW.i).. I informed him what had taken place. I told him I did not know their names but that they said they would come at mine." He also told Rashidi who described himself when giving evidence - he was Thv.l-as the Deputy Director of Criminal Investigation . 04 09 5/0 I •• I • I •• stationed at the Headqu.arters in Dar es Salasm, that he had told the accused that he would go to Mafia and raise the money. The deputy Director advised him to go to Mafia lest if he did not, the accused would discover that he had been staying.in Dar es- Salaain. On Tuesday, that was the following day, he went to Mafia and returned at the end of the week on Saturday. He enquired whether the accused had called at his house in his absence and he was informed that they had. On the night of the 16th of Mamh both accused came to his hou.se, but only the second accused Harnisi, entered leaving his companion the first accused, outside. He was asked whether he had the money and he replied that he had not0 He was then told to treat the money he had given them as lost and he would be taken away together with his vehicle. apparently at this stage the first accused entered and enquired why they were wasting so much time. The first accused Joseph told him that he (Bakari) was a Swahili and said that he had not obtained the money. The second accused then told hii to accompany him, and as they were going out, the first: accused advised his compa- nion to stop and hear what he had to say. They all then re-entered the house. The second accused asked him to give them the date by which he would have obtained the money, without bothering them any further, and he gave them Monday the 22nd as from 2 p.m. onwards, when they could come and collect the money. They then demanded money for a taxi in which to go horn, as they did not want him to drive them home, as he would thus discover where they lived. He gave theni sh.1001-. On the following Saturday they turned up again and said that they were going to a football match and wanted money, and he gave them shs.2001- and they left. He went to see the Deputy Director of C.I.], Iashidi and informed him that the accused were coming on Monday to collect the money they had demanded from him. On the Saturday the Deputy Director Hashidi came together with other police officers at about 1 p.m. and Rashidi handed him sh.3,0001- and left, leaving behind four ... 0 . 4 0 ,/6 police officers. Of these police officers two remained in his house whilst the two others stayed outside his house until at about 4.30 p.m. when the two accused came. The second accused entered first leaving his companion outside. However, his corn- pat-iion, the first accused, later entered and he then produced sh.3,0001- which he gave to second accused who handed it to the first accused. The fizt accused left first followed by him, and when he came outside, the police officers who had been in hiding both inside and outside his house arrested the two accused. The witness's evidence was confirmed by the Deputy Director Rashidi (P.w.1) who retailed the story that Bakari had told him, and he said that it was he who handed sh.390 001- to Inspector Tiba, whom afterwards he left in Bakarils house together with other police officers. He moreover stated that Inspector Tibar wrote down the numbers of the notes he received fror the witness. Inspector Tiba referred to, his full n'ne is Inspector Llfred Tibaigana (PW.6) testified that on the 22nd of March, his senior officer, Rashidi ordered him to accompany him to where he was going. Before they left the office, the'Deputy, Director handed him sh. 3,000/- together with a piece of paper on which was recorded the numbers of the notes. The inspector stated that he took three police officers and together with them went with Rashidi to Bakari's house. Before leaving Rashidi had told him that two police officers were demanding a bribe from Bakari. Rashidi left him at Bakari's house together with his companions. He and one police officer stayed in one of Bakari's rooms, whilst the two others remained outside. it about 4 p.m. the two accused arrived athd Bakari welcomed them into his house. Lfter a while the two accused left and they were arrested apparently by the officers who remained outside, and he and the other police offi- cer with him followed. He informed the two accused that they were under arrest. i3fter having.brought two civilian witnesses, he started searching the two accused, and in the front trouser pocket of the first accused he found shs.390001- in 811.100/- notcs tqog •SOLt13 'XPU1 A'A13 PT U9tfl. OXOM POS 1100 B OAq. DtTl •xadd Jo 000ic7uo ppxooei sxequxnu otq P°TTT- 'no psi sxeo -t;;o 00TTOd e ;o euo LTOT'q&k posn0013 sxt; uo puno; seqou —/ooi"cTs ot ;o sxequtnu aiq 6 xecI13d jo eoErc1 a uo s,xequrnu eq. srr1 p000 uw snq pue 'seqou ;o sxequ uop q.Tam sem tOTtAA uo xed ;o eoetd n ouo aoTJ ,4.oue PvelT uri et To euo M135 VCLTj WTtJ UO punoj aaam—/000,PtTs PT713 p3tTOIi3OS Pasr3OB 4.SaTj OtTq, Mus rT- pa;tseq. OsTe SaOPeaT TTOO ueq- SP peq-riosep oaam OcA sesseuq -r& OM. et 'uotuscTuioo stq pus urctl popootd pt o -qm usul 31fl tT5 TO0r STd 13 qnO 31009, osp u"OTJm ;o euo duOm xotflO Omq.w!tT .xeo,;s7 6 u12ui I0t1Ou13 POMOTTO3 U13W t511 TTT 8 PU13OI S P5 pus SPU13LT STIT 5STt O. osrot1 S6T'X13)2g J°T PGV 01 USUI @qq. pOtOptO pus TOiSTd poonpoxd usut atoutr - osiloq S,Tala3leg @ABOT usui AM3S lcoITor pus '05 pip Saiq 'XnOOO pOM 131A SSO(4TAA PTflO1 S VOtT. exotJM ql3pusl0A oiq. UO SSS O. 1110 74, p101. S10030 eOTTOd otjq OtTO Thsnoiqo 'USUI DunoR 13 I - ra-e3reg Jo 1. 13 tJ. oq. t13OU 9 T T.TOTtTI'A OSn01T synpus j:o spv1xQ.& 0 41 tT JVtT1. 1.T7tTM OX13jtj JO PUF2 Oiq. uo ui.cT j7 q.roqs q.,e stq 1.00;;e ot. oq. p csoq. t.oq oi (1•4) slovelg vrepow Pus (cM.) flPUS1.TI TO @ ,.' DtA StTCTTTATO OM1. OT] •pesnoos OAM et[. pototseS Vot uaiTm q.uaetcI sssouqi usiT -t1.To uçt.st ;o uoT1.n1300td Otf USS1. Pl?, TT OOTTOd etfl. 'psq.ou s •peTfl -5q SritTq. pus xedsd Jo OOeçd ot. uo pepxooei sxeq —urnu ot. qsLnuoe soqou otrq. ;o sxequmu etj. peooto eqTj toq.00dsuI 'se.ou —/ooTtTs trç —/000'crs puno; aaam uotssossod s 6 pesnoos 1-9'TJ otjq. UI 'S9T*I13t3 OT13UO3 pus UqTl to1.oOcTGUJ: TtAA OsnOti 0Tfl. mOx; oIewo poanoos pu000s aqq. was uot. O}j p5oqO RTC13I —nq.su pas110013 q.SIt; 01TI TTT1.5 pucs pus sPUOIT STtt 8St13I O. UXTtT P1 0 1. Pue pOBY100S 1.8 TJ OLfl. 1 O pOoUtOd et TJOTLTM TOOr ST Stt peynpozd 9H •esnoq etTI. 8A130[ posnooc 19XTJ OT.fl. M135 Ott RT1.tIO'JTDOS —qils UOt 'OSllOtJ &fl. OPTS1XO PIT13WO1 OH 0 TO13 tTOTtT pUS SOT-tstTO SOTXStTD SqSuO3 uietq.. Tfl.ttA P13LT Ret. 13tJq. pus I nqTj to1.oscCsuI pus TPTttH xoqoerta Jc1.ncI0a 8t. peTusduI000s OtfM SIe0TJ0 80 TT 6d eqq. Jo OtTO SSAA Ot 1. 3 tT1. POTT1.SO1. (LM) TBP7 O.A.T1. —OOO(j POTTT131 1c0t11. pus mei Tfl.TftA P13tT ice X9CSCT Jo ooetd e uo uMop ueti sxequrnu DIM. tflTPA sOqou Ot Jo xequniu eiq. peoeo OH 8 ' ......... the civilian witnesses confirmed the evidence of the police wit- nesses that when the second accused was searched nothing was found on him. An employee of the Central Registry of Motor Vehicles testi- fied that a vehicle, a Peu.geat 404 No. TDH 434, was first regis- tered in the name of Auto Garage and subsequently it was trans- ferred to B&cari A.Juma, but the engine number of the vehicle which was recorded, did not tally with that of the vehicle which the witness saw outside the court, which bore the registration number TDH 434, around which vehicle this case is centred. For completion of the record it should be recorded that one Zeudi Lziz Ivlirza (PW.9) testified that the vehicle TDH 434 one belonged to him. He had bought it from the Auto Garage. The vehicle was involved in an accident and was written off. He handed the registration card in respect of the vehicle to Bakari Juma, who as noted used it for the vehicle he had bought which bore a Kenyan registration number. Both accused elected to give evidence on oath and each asser- ted that the whole case against him was a frame up by the police. The first accused stated that on the material day which he gave wrongly as the 26th of March, it was actually 22nd of March, as he was passing along Swahili Street, he found himself suddenly accosted by a police officer with a pistol, who took him to Bakari's house, from which he saw Inspector Tiba emerge with a bLu-Idle of papers. He was then searched and only sh.56/- was found on him. On the following day his house was searched in the presence of a 'Tariu Cell leader', and all that was found was a three piece suite referred to wiariously as sofa set and couches and a record player. He said that the record player belonged to his brother, whilst the fornituie he had bought with the money sent to him by his father, apparently some bride price. He gave as a reason for the police fabricating the case against hLa, that he had once quarrelled with Inspector Tiba over a files' issue (sic). kid he concluded his evidence with I did not cross-exaine • •,/ 9 I • I • • C I I I him on this now put in my defence. I did, not consider it nece- ssary. I am alone" (sic). Likewise, the second accused also asserted that the whole case against him was fabricated. On the material day that is the 22nd of March, as he was passing along Swahili Street he saw two men emerge from the rear door of a house. One of them was holding a pistol and he ordered him to raise his hands. He knew that they were police officers, and Inspector Tiba told him that they were suspected of having received sh.3 9 0001- as a bribe from Bakari L. Juna. He was searched and nothing was found on him. He was then taken to the police station. He even denied knowing the first accused, let alone having worked in concert with him to extort money from Bakari, whom he had seen for the . first time only in court. I4ppare.n -tly in answer to a question when he was cross-examined as to why the case against him had been fabricated he said: "1 do not know the first accused. I came to know him the day we were arrested. We work in one building at the Central Police Station. I intended to walk to Magomeni and back because I had no money. I have seen Bakari only in Court. I did not know the witnesses who searched me. I don 9 t know the witnesses. Some I saw on arrest I can not rule out the possibility of dispute. But I had not met with any." The first accused called a brother of his, who is also a police officer, apparently stationed in Mtwara. He testified that when he came to Dar es Salaam he saw the record player vvich which was subsequently found in the possession of the first accu- sed, and not having found an opportunity to buy it, he left sh. 1 9 300/- with his brother to buy it for him. Before his brother could send the record player to him he was arrested on these instant charges. The first accused also called as a witness a man whose relationship to him is not clear, but he referred to the first accused as his son. He stated that he had sold five cows and set the money obtained for them to his son, it was in 0 ,'LO etfl. tru peinex tTOTLTM deaq. oqq. peStttIo OtM .ueui1.xcTG uotq.Tqe/.0 TUTUITJO ei:jq. TO I0qoe1Tc[ Aqxide s8Mq - l eqTj .toq.OecTSui tflTM PeTT JEfl1TD pLf 9LT 3T UeA9 Sle 6 TTP i- cU RLIO J.OU SOOP WTLT q.SUTV9n eouepti.e otq. ;o UOTq.SOTaqpl a -qq. xo; OSfl3OB q.SIT; etjq. .iVq 83u030p STLT wt UGATO oKq.otu et. qSTTtTM 'ux -rtI qSUTi eSO SL1OLXOS n qons e oTaquj p1DOtS Se$SeUq.TM uTTTATo pU GOT[Oc c'JM TT UOSGt OU -pe;11eqoroA pasnoon puooes TII 'T 9fl 0 T 19 S ATT01 Ue eq q.OU prnOo peSriOO 0N4 a-qq. 30 eoue;ep 0tfl PTs eçw P@ual,-GT eqq. sr eseuqiw etJq. ;o cTTTqTpexo etfl. tTO OeTOI 814 UT OU OP ROLJ MeTA 'cw UT puc &Gt1OLXOS TT-e qn SetOtTdeXOSTp tjonS pxoi OU op I -Tw PU38T eT.fl. °)TT IOMOH sesseuqTM UOqX09SO1d etq. jo eoLTepAe et trt SeToTJde.XOStp etl. uo q.TGmP 'Teadds ;o SUOTqTq.Gd "Tfl- UT PUe TT .'-T MIU;Dqe!I-S 'Tfl- UT 9YOO LflO[ IflLTOA T-fl- PTOIT oq. em xo; petoqe; ij eq qou pyno u CTOeO tfl.TM uoiqotiCuoo u -t paqou suosxed pesroo t.og 'cTsoT1es uep. eq qouueo eouo;op xtoLtL eqOrTD I pue pTss 'cT-TT' £clOA eXq.stm etfl pCSflOO 9tfl O OOUGOP 8tfl O. pt8I TflT. S1T eqq. ;o sqe3100cT eqq ;o euO UT PU1103 ajam —10009'T-f9 pLT*e potroIes exeM Seiq. q.PtTq. pue esrioq s 6 TI3 mox; ezowe P9snOOB 0M4 e14 mvs sxepei TTO ueq G peqtosep exe 'peqOu S dOt1M SueTTTATO oMq. pue sleoT;;o eOçfOcI otq Sq sei peq toqozoo Siui cI uo. %x Lfl eow iq OJI otj 'qunoo PXTW. eLfl. oq. pxex tflTA 'XOAOAA0H unoo o. esot. uo peioo trqoq poqq.Tnboe 'cTuTPJ000 eq pue peqexoqoxxoo .OU SM eoueprAG SoTaMlug VRtfl. pLTflO $TUt PeUI2eT G-qn, Sq.utiOO PUOO8S pLm qsaTj8tfl oq. pxet qT J A uor%xoqo3.1oo perrrbei eouepe OSOtTM eOTTcIUiOOO ue T13E poexq. 'cT.tT2TbX eqirnb 'qoedsei LJq.TA ATA cw UT Pun TT.°P UT eouep-u.e OTTq. petrruixe UeUIpnC Tj-'Rnoao-qq. RqpUOwmOO u UT peuJoT eql pet.oies s& qç ueqm esnotj s - ti tr pimo; exnqtuxn; et Srq oq. tOTLJM tJTM ceuom 9qq. petrt'aqqo pq ei MOt LsTTqqse oq. SBm uew sttq UTTT° UT peoo l.SXT] 8tJ ;o qoeCqo eq eTLxut amos tflTM uoiq.oeuuoo '/OT j_j_,/. • • . • . . . . sion of the two accused. I would go even further and say' that I would have been prepared to uphold a conviction for soliciting the bribe, for it is crystal clear from the evidence of the taxi driver that it was the two accused who sought out the owner of the taxi, in respect of which at least one offence had been committed, if not more, and having found Bakari to be the owner, they 'proceeded to milk him. However, as the Republic has not appealed from the acquit—'' tals, I do not need to deal with that aspect of the case, in so far as the acquittals are concerned, but w.such factor is certainly relevant to the assessment of the sentences imposed on the accused. is noted each of accused was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, which is the minimum prescribed sentence for the offence of which they were convicted, as laid down in the Minimum Sentences tct 1972. However,as repeatedly stressed the minimum sentence is not necessarily the standard one. Notice to show cause why the sentences should not be enhanced were served on the accu$ed when their appeals were heard, and they asked for time to prepare their submissions in answer to the notices, which they wished to make in person. Lnd the hearing was accordingly adjourned for a week. it the resumed hearing a week later, the first accused in advancing reasons why the sentence on him should not be enhanced 9 pleaded that he was a sick man, as he was sufferir.g from epilepsy; and there is in the proceedings a note from the prison medical officer that: Patient has history of a falling down disease." In the circumstances, taking into consideration as well that the accused's career in the Police Force is now at an end, as Is that of the' second accu.sed,'I am not persuaded thatthe sentences impo.sed on the accused should be enhanced. Both appeals are accordingly dismissed in their entirety. Delivered in open Court at Dar es Salaam this day of april, 1978. 63 (PHILIP BIRON) JUDGE.