19820316 TZHC Tanga

0 - • S -•-- pe.xod.xuid aqj.pu p3I49TLb iqe.Xet ST Olilts at q.8 o. peMotit eq e1oeJet .0UUt0 fl put itartT s - c UO140TAUO0 GTqlj 0 9t.UOI aA1eM. JO poTJ:ed o; pai0sp tU0çEptZ00 StM 3T.l put epOQ ,uaa o'O (?) LLT uOco r oes 01. SJ-cq.UOO puoqttA put enO1 1uoq jo . sç eouejj0 JO pe.OAU0D put tJtM pe1ttl0 4 9U0) tmo uo 4 9VA e qutedcIt sTT 0. UOtq t$J irt J4UI Jn4st:T UT pue sT14. 9p.ItM0. 0 peonppt sti aaUepAe Jo uTt.x t UeA e0uae5id q.UGTnpnUaj 910 3S - t3 lOpUfl 'pirpi 9io e.Inuu klu co suo rqTJ4u0o qtçatto elnoold oq. 2UTJrLOAVGPUG 10 &sUflV Jo JOpeiOo 10 91e1Ot? svqnoqv ate qo -çuoo at. 'elnqtleAptaed lit pUoA8q 6 paiq%49e eq .snWq.T apo o ltuea e ;o () LLT i:cfloes oq. Lit.xuoo pUoqttA put 9fl01 wçaq ;o 3OUBJJO et. 1oj pus oq. UOi40AU00 t :j 't.L9T9 1twacfl2 ° SMtJI OT. 9 0 t'i°A 91 •dtç apoo itTZea e-q ;o (q) t s/o eoAles aqnd UT pooiduie ____ uOsled t 0. UO14tWIOJUT eslt.J UIAT gtIr:: )pu0008 sMti aTq. go 11ÔA 91 cduo po ituc ___ eiq- ;o() Lit 9/0 ptX0qttA pT5tt et0 tr( f1TO - SflSlaA •••o 0 0 • . . cc 000009 I: IXVEVL1)2 eJ.sTwI/a °z óè1 (oosflri qv -°TJsTa oqotsnr j' q.xno -oT.'-sTct) T. JO 0861 JO ct 0fl 05t3 . IT10 itUTT910) - 0861 JO o 0N 'Ivaa&\ 'IVi\IIWIUO / aivaav I - • V IVZNV1 0 1IflOO HOIlI allLI II - lAjcs Ws M I / I 2-. 0 order of conditional dischrge passed threon is set aside On Count two •t.ie appellant was charged with and convicted of the offence of.giving falso information to a person employed in the public service contrary to section 122 (b) of the Penal Code. The salient facts of the Prosecution case show that the appellant reported to the Police that he ha given PW3 some money, proceeds of a meat business in which he and PW2 were interested, for onward.transmission to the latter, that is PW2, but PW3 had misappropria -ted the same. PW3 wa.arrested in connectioi: with the matter but he was subsequently released In their evjdice in the Court below both PW2 and pW3 denied that 2W3 ever ham led any cash from the said meat businesS. This was contradicted by the appellant and one Apelesi Moses Shemkingo (DW3) who worked as a :urer in the appellantts butchery at the material time.' These tw: persons asserted that PW3 was actually the person who was the cashir at the appellant's butchery, The learned trial Magistrate rejected the defence stoy simply by reason of the fact that the handing over was not reduced in writing. The appellant retorted that there was no handing over certificate because of mutual trust that then existed between them. The Police officer who investj the gated the case 1 pW4 had earlier on told trial Magistrate at the hearing of the case that the appellant had no proof that he handed over the money to PW3 With due respect to the learned trial Magistrate the mere fact that the appellant failed to prove his allegation does not ipso facto r mean that the report he made to the Police w1as false Por a conviction on Count two to stand it was incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove 1 among other things, that the information which the appellant gave was false and that he himself Imew or believed that the same was fa1se On the evidence on record it cannot be said with moral certainty and to the exclusion of e - -ery reasonable doubt that the ...../3 - • .- - I I - 3 - appellant deliberately madc the report which he himself Imew was false For this reason the onviction. on Count tvo too is quashed. and the sentence passed the::on is set aside' The record of proceedi:g6 of the tr.a1 Court shows that when the charges were being rea -1 out to the appellant he, i.e, the latter, behaved in a maimer which by every civilized standard, was dis- respectful. The learned t::ial Magistrate book cognizance - of the contempt of Cou't and, foliwing the procedure laid down' in the case of Joseph Odhengo 6/0 )gongo V,P (.1954) 21 E.A.C.A. 302, proceeded to deal with him under Sect ;ion 114 (i) a) of the Penal Code The appellant refused and/or r,lected to answer relevantly when given 'anopportuiity to do s.o. cannot now be heard to complain against the cürse of action purS d by the trial Magistiatê If anything the appellant, now, has hiiself to blame because he, albeit un- wittingly, forfeited his ]ight to be heu.rd on the point He was eventually sentenced to three mnnths imprisonment' On my evaluation of what transpired at the mateia1 time I am satisfied that the , conviction on this Count was 7roper and it is hereby upheld. In the final result this appeal succeeds to the extent indicated - In all other respects it is dismissed -' Delivered in open Court at Tanga this 16th day of March 1982 (H.E.D. Sya) JUDGE - -.--..---- -V / - 3 appellant deliberately mad&_ the re -àort which he himself 1ew was false. For this reason the onviction ourb two too is quashed and the sentence passed the:oon is set aside' The record of proceedigs of the trial Court 50WS that when the charges were being reo3 out to the appellant he i.e. the latter, behaved inan.imer which by every civil..ed standard, was dis- respectful o The learned t:.ial Magistrat.- GOOk cogniZane of the contempt of Court andi fol) owing the procedure laid down in the case of Josph Odhengo 2/0 igongo V (1fl54) 21 E.A.C.AS 302, poceedd to deal with him under SeY;ion 114 (i) (a) of the Penal Code The appellant refused and/or nu g lected to answer relevantly when given an opportnity to do so U cannot now he heard to complain against the course of action purstd by the trial Magistrate; If anything the appellant, •floW -has h:iaself to blame because he albeit un- wittingly forfeited his iight to be heard on the point He was eventually sentenced to three mnnths imprisonment. On my evaluation of what transpired at the maeia1 time I am satisfied that the conviction on this Count was Droper and it is hereby upheld. In the final result this appeal succeeds to the ez-tent indicated In all other respects it is dismissed - Delivered in open Cotrt at Tanga this 16th day of March 198 2 (d.ED. Sya JUDGE