19820602 TZHC Mbeya

=/OOL'T'sts S c 2LtI3ft TTt '=/OO TTTIC .: OtITJ t' C pooU4uos StEM C'ttc put iloccopurit OOJT4 StITTTTtS .JC OUTJ ' 04 P3OuOiUpS C tiMO -tfl(d JT3tT. UC UTTOCId. otq Rq pa Ucc.xOPA sucsod C A . osc 'T'OdCI STT4 C, SSccInçi OT .,U4OTOJJ.T G Lfl nq 60ou0;jc. :rttI i ton3f-Inc ;c ucTscAcJcI ?I 0111 C tM 4Oth LCTJ ST ] SJ1 1CtI )UT3pCM trtnp oquiccT uTfuTJp ;c aouojc aq s pcao inco 1JGMCT-.Lrt. c -pOJJO;oJ ST tt[M tTM pO%?JtLTO pTIa .xooTj;c • ooTTccI urcti cq qTh4 OJaM sucsxod oç; ouics LL6T oqco LflT u orisip utMqtttri tzT o nP 0STJ JflC3 iJtttTJ LtETT 0 cT( 0]3 -, quoEucsTJJi 1T SJ1O 111 OXTP r cq. poouctzes It TT0SJCJpDqOTAUCO StM 0t t[0TTM lIT qoTJq.sT 'oqq.. C . tI'TStC'0[ :ot.suçZ 31ocqtuc)j c/S uTMpc).Quc Aq TocicT.I..,ST S STIIIL .............. .......... ''2 @CiI 'V . 2 ............. - .:. .. PWfl f... I,. :. . SM11T •. . oq JC 9T 'O ' rC'i T'Lla 0lI4 SC 9? pUC OL ss/o caiIIos oiqri trr po1ccruxo ucsct 1cc1 7UT7t0O 0iSttQ (cnooscx TSUTiJO) OITnd:aH aHI / (posnoov TSUTTJO) oawciimaoo est2jj ueptso 'bsj tZ0M of#S :oJc;o I (vMw: vID JUISILT VTEWX1 ffO W?I11OO JOIHLIC[ 2iHJ ffO L6tiW t't'i 0N riuo Ti:iriTo 'r: lloI?io) 06 LW e 'OH LiIIHO NO ILL3IOIaflf a=9 7 a div Tc V1L4.LL2Ii VI!\iZNViTi ffO L&ICO H-3fl1 Hi NI "_9_~ T _ .1 - 2 It was. allo-oi in the lower c crt that all thoo persons paid up the fines tj. the a.;o mt in porso t h e same day but that the appc..11aiit did nt issuc. any fcccoits to thorn, 2ino wi.tnossos who inclucd two asssors who- had s:t Nith a Dcllmt when- the fivc /3ffcndors were convicted testified -)n sooin the appelldat rcceie the money and not issuing any receipts. Hoyor, in his defence the appellant said ho had given/the five persons time topay the f±no md that n -one of /ticm raid such fines to him Ra,said that in any casd it *as his court clerk (PW.lO)whoe lUty is was to reciiëpaymonts to court. PJlOportd the po1lat ciam that all the five fined pors)ns had been given Itime by . the appellant to pay the fines, tht mono f them made any payments to the apo Li:ut an that th isual practice was f:r o':ents to a urt to bo - rnac I •tl:e -ceclork a n d n o t to tc i etr to In this o:l loarrc 1 c:nsol :.)r tho aDpel1ait..as purged. that ticro wore :tori :1. c ntrditi me in -the. v,4cnce •of tho rJs.outiom wjtiosooe .7LI1Ch I :J.catc. that. tnjsc OS wc :rc o • iln' :4s 'aint hj. ;ip lzt. Ho contans that the five pa s.ei Wn.)m th o at. c-oniç.ted 0Iiped. they. woald .;ain b:, fal331y sayi4 -1ej ai.thoir. fi.s t. the ap-e,1lant causo, if the1-tiil cetbelieved em,,--t1y vlJ;esapo jhç iopd ?. u th--se fie a rly,.• iha assessors Who-11ad,at. 'vLth ; -th appelant hd :.::a --motiv,s to :.tOil li ;ss ;againt a1ipc L CUSçI . ha4 . vdi -re -rde&.t1iir.- bythe Primary Qourt finod 1 shs.2/ or :.iv• h:., .- -v o 'i:.i Y. Learned counsel J r the appellant also argues that the trial court shol' ave believed the appilaflts d.bnial that he receid any money particularly so after J 1eiil by one of the prosecution being 5.t) .'toa in t itc;s FAT.10. :- -! - - --H:-. --. ihI;e ..•.;------------- - :all, the lp Lied . med argues that tho tria,, maisrtc s pLycct I prouico fraae o mind a:inst ,the appcllnt d P ) uaor:± 010 riado wrong prsumptiofl8 e L resultinl i £ n UUSIiC cjnvction ot the appc],lant, ( - -. - :- '•' ..i3 1. 3 - •:• The trial rajistrato found it incredible that the appellant ould hate Civen the five porsns tw/rn3nths within which to pay the fines0 He thuçht..bhaj if thDso five persons wore unable to pay the fimes mmodiately they would have been sent to rison. 0 I thinkhowever, that it is not all that inéredible for a curtJto allow an accused person time to pay a fine and inhe absence.of clear evidence that the accused persons vcre to g to prison on failure to immediately pay the finos, such a possibility could exist. The trial magitrate also appeared t., imply that it was the ajpollnt who caused the disappearence of the court file0 But there is no evidence to show that the appellant was -esponsible f or the failure by the police invetigat.brs to find the case file as well as the curt rogistor.. 1is regards P.lO who was the appbllantts court clerk and who gave ovidenbein suprt-of the a:pOilant the trial :r 2 ; it must bc ndersood da that LP7 0 JO is serving r2pri1tarrnr. : orstoling Pblicmi, The :-f accüod (äi 1oellet) 'I'o Y.. .'.:.sOTvWg a .prison. tom miani.. 4..., offcncc, a fact which mkmo beli?à t1tt6 'two ve c.00rating in thrr:tt.ers; he áidiñ f 10 jë'ctd, hope the learned thgitratc did nt ican to ay that prison inmates arc icaab d f ivang tric evidence n coii.rt abut one another r that vvhn thy ivc av3atable cvidñco fir x ,_ ,q'anitIrIcr 1 1110th isl thO thüst have been cdI)IiIpIi:d I, hrc, I i5 8 ud1thin i ir'iw eiànO; The ltrttc 15othtibn,h.3weor that oven prison inmates are opot.cnt-withbesos in ,evqce must be coidoroJ like t}t of any other witness, The t1cjuit..in this case ho;everwa, entitled 9 after observing the ieicanor .10 canal cnn: that he was a niät tie fcnc45T '.stb'ih ti ii1ü. evibrtóo suspic1Jus and therefore rHct it., I, fr my part, am not imessodoy the evidence o 2117 .10 and I think 1t was C 4 properly rejected. Going, back t) thc oyidcnce in the lwer c)urt record it is quito clear that the five people who were convicted by the Primary Court which was presided/over by the appellant were not given time to pay thb fine S. I like the lower c.)urt find it established sail firmly believe that the appellant received as fines shs.l,700/= and did not issue to the payers any receipts. The appellant has not given any explanation as to how hola000unted for the money, which was then puiblic revonuo The only inference open to the trial court was that the Eopdllant stole it. The trial court thercf ore properly ojcted the a)pellent's defence and convictod him for the offiicc of theft by public servant. This aopoal is disised in it .ntiroty, .::.. ...; - S. T. hR.AO .............. 1 .SL JUDGE.................. . 2nd June, 1982 : sL.s1 .;••• . : ' 1 J:I/TiVlima. :...............;' , 1 ................. •., . .-. . .., ..: 1., i..:. ._'.. I .. . . •.. : ... • . .• •'..