19801219 TZHC Tabora

7 - I 11 IN TUX nTGa CCUIP (* ?ANANrA AT TABORA : APPELL!TE JtiR1bICTXO --- 4 (Thbora Registry) 'CflINit' APPEAL..NC;6 PRICE COISSOR OF 'THE DISTRICT OF KASULIJ DISTRICT Defore i The Price Conissioner MIJNAZI 9/0 NDIMUGWANGe ... . ... PPELLANT versus I tE EP1JBLIC PE$rNDENT lcaA bstruoting an auhoried oidter to enter and • RGEI ca•wne bu neSs" pzemes ndgoodá d/e 2'(6)' of Act 19 of •1971 JUDGMENT CH'PTA,. J • The appe'i Iarit UAZ1 Sb DiMtJGwANGO • is appe aiin against aXi' order' 1 as fr as the Pecords hO'w,- of the Ass istn.t r r i.ce : C ommi is: cn'e'r , Kasulu Dij§tr-fctr The órclét hich was made under the provisions of 5eti•6n j: and 34 • of. the Re.guIat.±on of Prices Act.1 1973( re quiréd the appeI.Iant to pay $hs'4Z,OOO/= fér the c:ompodd ófence -- ngl em f" d b stm r;U io a to: Cter the appellant' S: btsines'S . premise's and' goods /s 25(6)' of the: A.Ct ' The ground of s tane fff, the theflibandüth of app'ea 1, no on. the. bas±s of wh.ic.h ths 'pp'e al wS a uie.d *as t'.hG appe afl'it; "S a11ie:ga4ioit tiat the otficet &o pupo'rted to comp'ound the offTonce hd no ah'o'tit , to do áó' a5 h'e wag i'oj, the price mm:sOflez In rde to' deide the' m er it s of that iga'ton 1 , gi ne.cess.ary to' look at the pYo±.siot'S o( t1ei Adt arM the C-ont;ents of- the l.evan't dOcueitt 1* the' first. pIa:.e, I am ti sfied: tI the of téie: iii qU..tio' wa5 compoinidabIe jflk tIa-' the' 6ff.exilOe wa's' not on'e.- -f thos;e e-lded tThe ptoviso to st-ion 11 of the Act'.- The Act a1So provideS t16 the 5f1'icet lthorize d to oornpou'fld' coti'Oun'dable of nc'e'S Un'ë th Act jL0; tle Price mi&ssiofter.. y virtue of t'h Povi-sioriS' of • sbs.ec.t:ion. (. of Se ion- of the Act , the- te. "r'1ce' C'omms:s'ioner:" iii S:'.tjon 1,41 of t-he At tdà* (2) - Assistant Price Commissioner; and by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 7 of the Act, a District Development irector is an Assistant Price Commissioner for the District for which he is the District Development Director. In the, instant case,' the Document by which the appellant is said to have informed the Assistant Price Commissioner that he was admitting having comIi'iittedthe,.ofence '-ited above, was duly signed by the appellant. That very document shows clëiirly that the officer whoecercised the power to compound the offence iJ vis-a-vis the appellant was one John Paul Gweba, the District Develop'tLuirector for Kasulu 'bistrict and, ipso fa4Sto, the ktssistant k'rice Commissioner for Kasulu District. He personally signed the document and properly rubber-stamped it A teceipt for Sh-s!.2-, 000/= was duly issued to the appellant after he had paid the money. Before this court the appellant himself admits that t h e saiJohn' Pail G(eba was the District Development Director at the material time. Those 'iJ'ing the facts, .Iam not prepared. to accept the appellant's a11egation, which 1 can only describe ':.a.s wild, that .the officer who compounded the offence was not the 4Ssistant Price Commissioner. It is possible that the appellant was confused by the fact tiat the offence was, possibly, detected by an ' offcei(pieunbly a price inspector) other than the Assistant Price Commissioner himself. If that is so, • then the appellant:was gravelymistaken. The law does not require that the Price 'Commissioner or Assistant Price Commissioner should himself detect the offence. All the law requires is that he should be'satisfied that a particular 1 person has committed and admits in writing having committed, a compoundable offence under the Act or under any regulations mad her ,eunder. He may so satisfy himself by reports'madè by a price. inspector appo1nt'ed under Section'lB ! :'±he Act,. • For the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly heieby dismissed.' ' • Tabora, D.IPET..,,_ •B . k 19th December, 1980 JUDGE. S - •- '' ' S. -