Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

19741016 TZCA Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant's report of robbery was found to be false and intended to cause annoyance to another, and he failed to account for public funds, justifying convictions under the relevant Penal Code sections. The sentence for stealing was the statutory minimum, but the sentence for giving false information was reduced due to the appellant being a first offender.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed in respect of convictions; sentence for count 1 reduced; sentences to run concurrently; compensation order confirmed

Orders

  • Convictions on both counts confirmed
  • Sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing (count 2) confirmed
  • Sentence for giving false information (count 1) reduced from 6 months to 3 months imprisonment
  • Sentences to run concurrently
  • Order of compensation confirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

Daniel R. Rupia

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount Stolen: TZS 752
  • Amount Collected: TZS 932.5
  • Amount in Possession: TZS 230
  • Sentence for Stealing (months): months 36
  • Sentence for Giving False Information (months, Reduced): months 3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant challenged the convictions and sentences, disputing the findings of the trial court and failing to account for the missing amount in his memorandum of appeal.
Respondent
The respondent maintained that the appellant's report of robbery was false and that he could not account for the missing funds, justifying the convictions and sentences.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Penal Code, section 122(b)

    A false report to the police with intent to cause annoyance or misuse of lawful power constitutes an offence under section 122(b) of the Penal Code.

  2. 02

    Penal Code, sections 265 and 270

    Failure to account for collected public funds by a public servant justifies a conviction for stealing under sections 265 and 270 of the Penal Code.

  3. 03

    Minimum Sentences Act

    Minimum sentences for certain offences are mandated by the Minimum Sentences Act.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant's report of robbery was found to be false and intended to cause annoyance to another, and he failed to account for public funds, justifying convictions under the relevant Penal Code sections. The sentence for stealing was the statutory minimum, but the sentence for giving false information was reduced due to the appellant being a first offender.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed in respect of convictions; sentence for count 1 reduced; sentences to run concurrently; compensation order confirmed

  • Convictions on both counts confirmed
  • Sentence of 3 years imprisonment for stealing (count 2) confirmed
  • Sentence for giving false information (count 1) reduced from 6 months to 3 months imprisonment
  • Sentences to run concurrently
  • Order of compensation confirmed

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 16 October 1974

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 16 October 1974

19741016 TZCA Dar es Salaam

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM

APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NOo 5.1 OF 1974 original Criminal Case Noo 119 of 1972 of the District Court of Ulanga District at Mahenge BE·FORE: Ao So tUKANGA Esqo, District Magi$trateo DANIEL Ro RUPIA 0 C) 0 0 ci O 0 0000000000 APPELLANT Versus THE REPUBLIC 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 e o o o o RESPONDENT CHARGE::1.Giving False information to a person employed in the Public Service - els 122 (b) of the P.,Co and 2oSteaiing by a person employed i.n the Public Service c/ss 265 and 270 of the PoCo JUD.GM ENT MWAKIBETE, Jo Before the District Court of Ulanga at Mahenge the appellant - Daniel Ro Rupia - was charged with:- Giving False information to ·a person employed in the Public Service - c/s 122(b) of the Penal Code and Stealing - c/ss 270 and 265 of Penal Code.; the He was convicted in both counts and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment in respect of count 2 and 6 months in respect of count 1. Against the convictions and sentences he has appealed to this courto According to the record of the lower court, the appellant had been employed by TANU as Revenue Collectoro At one time during the month of July 1972 the appellant is alleged to have reported to Mahenge Police Station that he had been robbed of shso 170/- the property of the "Party" - by one Ahmed Kipaoo Subsequent investigations by the Police revealed that the story was falseo It was ·against this background

that the Police decided to check the Books of Account held by the appellanto The check revealed that the appeilant had collected shso 932/50. He had shso 230/- in his possession· but could not account for the remaining amount,. hence the charge against himo On the evidence on record I am unable to say that the conclusions of the trial Magistrate were wrong. The appellant had reported that the robbery had occured at the pombe club during the day t.ime and in the presence of several personso But none of the peopie present at the pombe club gave evidence in support of his allegations .. Those who were at the pombe. · club,. who happened to give evidence, testified that the appellant was creating disturbance at the club and that Ahamed merely rose to warn him that if the appellant continued his unbecoming behaviour Ahamed would report him to the Policeo As if to heed the warning the appellant is alleged to have left the place without uttering a word of complaint on the alleged stolen moneyo The appellant would certainly have not kept quiet .- 2 if he had really beeh robbed as he reported to the Police Stationo I am satisfied the report by the appellant, to the Police, that he had been robbed, was false... In so reporting the appellant must have intended to cause the Police to use their lawful power to the annoyance of Ahamed for the report would have resulted in the arrest of

Ahamed., The appeliant' s act offended against the provisions· of Section 122(b} of the Penal Code., He was, therefore, properly charged and convicted under the section" It is immateAial that l\hamed was not arrested by the Policeo As for the count of Stealing the appellant would not account for the amount of shs. 752/-o He has not explained in his memorandum of appeal whether the amount was available and where he had kept it - if at allo The conclusion that he stole the money was both irresistible and justified on the facts on recordo The appeal against.the convictions is accordingly dismissedo As for sentence, the 3 year term of imprisonment imposed on the stealing count is the minimum tinder the law, the offence falling under the Minimum Sentences Act. The sentence is confirmedo ':"'.1.0 6 months term of imprisonment in respect of count'.'.. however, is the .minimum under the section" Appellant being a first offender deserved a more lenient sentence than the one imposed" Corollary the 6 months term of imprisonment is reduced to one of 3 months - to run concurrently with the sentence in count 2. 'Ine Order of compensation is confirmedo Delivered in open court at Dar es Salaam on the 16th day of October, 19740 r

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Penal Code section 122(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Penal Code sections 265 and 270

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Minimum Sentences Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.