19820604 TZHC Mbeya

qott uo eCI pesn uo topz& T3cIcI Jo tzop.çqcI et. Ut .ioesib etq Jo pxooet euq. uo BuTtIgou 5T e.xe ° mn iq petoqotoo s qUUTTCIWOO et jo uomq.s e. peqcIeoo ern jpTx4 pauzeT etj =/ocIstts sw jo uOTssessod irç pimoj s ,eLI !.Unowv etj. 7t SwT10 ITS11dcI 6 .IA1Ott 'Ipaddv J° UOTTcI STLt u JJO trq.stxe eq. &q poqctoss =/oc 08/9 'StS JO tZOTSoessod UT purioJ SE?M GIT VeLP. pees e} c1roo etq q.eui a.&pLj o. 'uoofctirç sseoou 4q q 'peçuop 3oue;ep tçq TI =/oc •ss jo U0SS9SSO UT 9q O. puuoj SM U Todd etfl. 'pasets svm oil uetrj zoqsoi 0/s virir auo .&q poioqo.iztoo siz zo ttr evaog jo ea&oidtro ui ou s .uvTTaddv etp 'uoos eq. uio.x; poedcissrp 6 P?O1-SUL - 014 qqOLpTp..Ig .IOJ Soots etjq, nq oq. RUTOP Stan eu tq aoq SttTsprco.d <EZET1 4 aIOiJ /oc SL15 e00I q.uEecIcte @T41 I doT4s 3pU'od suLtçj at uio.xj seous •ieqqn.x jo xd -e nq oq. &ITSOP ,XeLt pe se.xdxo PpLI Ta:T2- uztj 014 jo eeb1th1e U3 55i4. B14 ooue) 0/p T: OUO p1LtOJU uiTedcIe atq. 'md: noqt'--e 'cL6i 6 6 -`q- d@f3 ho VeLP. teT 014 Ip p siqtco RTapaTO SVA -I ° pessTurTcpeq qsntii Ihetd eL ttat'ItXOSTtCCU1T St.UOUX OUTU. JO ULXE. p oq. peOUeUeS s-et& pUp "@ Poo Teuaj 014 JO 33ç Os 0 t2tUC) 'seouoe.id eOJ iq keuoui UTuTq0 jo pe.oTAuoo M -• I jo opcp pPUpCIA fl0O .OTIST 014 JO U0TSTOaP h? lflo.IJ T9dLU ST flL - I o f VJit1VNVS H' 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0 DInIfl] .II aai snsaa.A. * 0 0 0000000S0000000 C 00005 OflIVSfltI VtUNV JJMlrrrkt(IT IThcf foF'i afaOf (v .vaw iv i3I?FIt Vc[NIM'! JO iUflODtHi JO oL61 dIO ec o'. asv LvinmIo wiio:rio) o L6i JO 691 • o: rraav 'ivima'to 1'OIi3ICtSflULC EILLVIFUICICTIV LIV VIiVZflVi ito unoo HDIH aHL NI 'C I j to hang t view that the learriedtiial magistrate was not entitled to reacti that oinion On the contrary, I think the evidence on record made that opinion ineluc 1 b1e9 No reason was suggested in this case why the complainant o Bukulu should have testified.: 7 falsely against the appellant, a man they had not imorn before the material date 0 I would dismis., the appeal against conviction. I turn now to the appe. aainst sentence. The maximum sentence prescribed by law for the offence of obtaining money by . false pretences is seven years 1 imp:Lsonment 0 I cannot, even with the best will in the world, see how i can validly be asserted bearing in - mind the-facb,that the sentE.,ce the anpellant received is excessive 0 In ray view the appellant got ) ;n fact,less tian what he deserved It would he ave mistake :r anyone to entertain the belief that the law will smile on those rio wish to earn their bread and butter by eloiti: the guflihilit of others 0 The apeal stands disL ssed in its entiretyG • LLTT! .: Dei.iered at Ibea -this 4th id of June, 1982, .in th presnd of Mr (apinga, comaci for the •Republic. . .: . .. . ..•. * • •, .. :. . B.. A. •SIIiiTT: - ... . . . .• •- J'UDG2. •.. :. • •.• . •• • . .. . . . .