19900216 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
The evidence did not establish that the respondent forged documents or knew the goods were stolen; discrepancies in delivery notes and receipts were attributable to internal business practices, not the respondent. The respondent lawfully acquired the goods after paying for them, and there was no merit in the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19900216 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Parties
- Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Rajabu Ramadhani
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 16 February 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Stolen Property, Evidence Evaluation, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant
Rajabu Ramadhani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was in possession of goods suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully acquired under section 312(1) of the Penal Code
- 2 Whether delivery notes and receipts were forged
- 3 Whether evidence was sufficient to prove possession of stolen goods
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence did not establish that the respondent forged documents or knew the goods were stolen; discrepancies in delivery notes and receipts were attributable to internal business practices, not the respondent. The respondent lawfully acquired the goods after paying for them, and there was no merit in the appeal.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Sugar, the subject matter of the case, is to be handed over to the respondent at once.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
onIGINAL cnLD:iV..L cLc:·: ~.-c. .<',:., ::;_· , •.. OF TJJE DISTRICT C(){JRT or IL.ALA :ins~.11n:c:i AT ICT;jQ"'J.U D I'·\. P fl 'l t a ._ -e • 'l;l ~ ,c,; o o O • .o O CJ o a o • a ~ • -0 4 -a • -f • u o :1, i • t, c ! 4 O t ., o ,., ,o, o -o , o Al'P~LLJ;i~i:!: ( Oric-,i.11.a,l Accuoccl) ve:rnus TL.:':..JABU IUU:'1A.D)~U\.iJI •., •, • o o.,. o , • o o ... • •••• • •• •. - • ••• ,, o e ~ ••. RESFOITJEJ.JT ( Original Prosecutor) JUDffiillJ.'J':2 RU13Jlll/IA ,~L" RAJAJ"3U il..fuYlJ\.DIIfJlfI -,;-,as chcl.Xc;ed 1d:Gh an.cl acqui tto·c,1 of beine in possession of g·oods sus::_)octec). of having been stolen or unlauf'ully acquired c/s 312 (1J) of the Penal Code., Dissatisfied by ·tl:.c decision, the Director of PulJlic n.ppeal, the second ground of uppcn.l ~,as cl..J.~oppdtl,, Tho ·argucc.l (,'TOtJ.ncls rcru:l i - "1. 'ITIAT tho lcn.rnod Tri...11 lfogi strata erred in lc:Jr ru.1d f2.0t to ~-n jcct the eviclcnco of FW2 a.ncl P:-T3 that deli very notes Hos. 009649 and 009650 we:eo fa.lee. 3., TIIAT tl:0 learned trinl r-Iq;i.sti~n.tc errccl in ln.1J n.rnl fact in holclinc tllaJli tho. evidence available in record in not suffi..,. cicnt to prove o. cl'ln.rgo of 1Jcine in possession of Goode suspoctocl to have boon s-bolcn o:r llli~a.ufully ncquirecl~ 11 · Tho facts in this ca.so arc aostly· not in disputeo .Insicl.e railwnys \fncon Ho. CLB _54208 wore found. Boo 50 I~. ba,'.)J of sucsnr ln.bellccl.• 11 Mooe in :S--£2..ziL 11 ..-.. The dcscri1Ybion of the c;oods as per Conoignacnt Note No.264760 of 17tb. Septc,1.~Jcr~ t ~ ·i:1988 was one lot of crapty c;wmy bngs ancl 50 ba,:;o of oencn-t,. The Consici1r.1c;.rb }fo-~c further wrone;ly showecl that tho consignor o:f the goods ua.s the Tanzru.u.n. Co·l.i·i;o1,. Marketing Boroxl and the consic;noo 1ras one lfassoi~o Sn,11,u:1-o The correcJli iclonti tir of the ··co:.,,1sie11or and consignee houever in Rajabu Rn:.1n.cll1n;;.u, ·Ghe· r~sponde~ri;, .. 111 Hha.t isLdispu-!ie is tho source of tl1c tmcar in the rnillrn.}r uo.e-on: the ros1)on~".e:,.1t tocti:fied ~hat 110 hcJ:l boueht Boo be.cs or sucn.r in two lots :fron rfohm.1cd Enfoi~- .prises -· 1st l<.'.1.i of 400 ba&s on 5th Ju.1,;r, 1988 E!l1.d t11c second lot of 400 lJ2[;'G 011 6tJ: Jul;ir, 1988., PW2 was the person that had solc1. ·i;hc suc;n.r to hin. RcociFb Ho.O0911 was issued on 5th July, 1933 a11cl i~occipt Ifo.00915 u9-s issued on 6th Juzy, 1988, He ua.s clso issued uith c.leli very notes., Those wore given by tl:.c eodoi-m kce1)or (PH3). However Pff2 G.11c1 PU3 tcstinony uas to tho effect tJ.:ttt t.~'.e~, hn.cl not clcnlt ui;Gll the rcsponC:cont oll ·l;he dc1ys n.lleG'ccl b;/ hin not he'.(]. they ~:J;_:cc". -~ ..\ the clocu.--:1cn-l;s he ( the rospoml01~t) b.o..d ncintcinod 112.Cl been issued to hi□ lJJr .... Entorpri ::ms. On thio clisptr'.iccl.. poo:i.tion 9 the lco.;enccl trfr.1 ;-_1::--.'j_ ot- _,. . c.,n~l tl1ci,t if -~ha,t suc,;o.r ho,d. been atolcn property,. then tho st.02.ling of the ;:;~'-L-··r l:;::<.l ;.)oc11· ~-"oi::.c by r.:Oi:1C~JoJy cl::;c 61l1. ·i;i·G.'.wut tho lmoulccl(;'o of tho res- pondent., I, too, cli.1 of tho sruJo vie,:. "·-cccp•cinc; tl:c clizcrc:)2;:1c:, i: 1. -c' .c nunbcrs of ·i;l:-..c rocci~,ts o.11cl the Lloli·_;rorJ no-0cs in rcl.-:i,-~ion -co -~heir co~)iw 1 I c7-o ;.1o·i; c:,ccop-li ·i;'.1at the rcsponclcnt ]:2,tl :for-c;od the cloc1.r.1ents. I firic7. he hc:d 3ot tlicn l'ro;:1 Ho:ia1ou. Enterpriooo 2.f·~or ~10 lwd cmminoly p2id for tl:,.or.1. 1"..d fotmcl i)jf tho leo..rnec.l tricl :-.12.-_:-;iotrc:cc, -~!.1c i·cspon.:}.ont, c. lJu:::;incss:-.-iaJ.1 i:'ror.1 Te,bor2. uoulcl not have hi\Cl tho abili·~2, of :Zor5i115 tho rccci)tr:J 2,nd the Dcli-.·c:_::~ NotcG ru.1cl lJoth the clocu;-.1cnto be so co:;,w:incinc. I too n.ccopt t110 fnct tl:c;S -~: .c [w.1swor to the cliscrcpancy in the 11u;.1bc1•0 ct tl:..e clocur:1cn-i;3 be lookoc.l for f1~o;:1 . PW2 8lld ?.T3 ;:,_,nd not tho roopondcnt~ '.L1210 in-~ornal functioninc; of J.lfol1r:i.1cc.l Enterprises is not the rospon<lcrit's buoinc::::s. Ile coulcl hardly bo cxpoctccl to doubt docur.1011"~s issued by tha.t bt.wincos firr.1 ui th whon, _ho, rcsponclcnt l.:o.iL had <lonlinc:;o bcf ore- I hardly roe,c,1 an,:;r-0:2.inG ~.1oro thcu1 wl1at un.s tosti:fiGc1• to by . tho· rcGponclon-t rcc:;ardinc; the wronc clct2.,ilo r;i van on Consic,1::u:1011t Note No4 264760 in ro·spoct of Hncof1 :fro., CLB 54_208. ::J.1~10 reason for hiclinc t].10 illcn,ti tic•o of tl10 consic,nor ru1c.1 · consi(P100 m'C ax:troi'.10lir l'CO..G0l1,'.1blo. It is C0Llf:1011 lmoulcclc0 -~:ic:;~ GUG'a.r haG boon a scarce i ton or cor.1no11<.lit;;r in this Republic for n very lo:1e:; ·l:iir.10,. It is in fo..ct i:;till a occ:~cc oo;:,nocli t:;,~. that theft iror.1 r2..ihrc!JT 1h1Jona is hiclcoprc.::i.d. . H ir.i c,lso a widely lrno1ri1 :'.:;_'.,()·~ . Idonti ty of either a c onsicno:c or consi@100 cou1cl crn::ily ,3:i vo an incJ.icZ'.,tion of uhn:'G is in .:i. roiluey wa-::;0:.1. Hood to hide tho:::ofacts is intolli:.;o;.1cc whdcvcr it ncru.10 in tori:1s of rail,T,:,/G roe;1.ilo.tions. To go ni th this r.1iGinfor;:11:::'cion is tho hiding of who..t uo.s bcine;- trunsportcd. · Tho respondent cai.1 su.rcls not clo.in to llr:.vo been the originc~·~o:: of such clcspc:rc..to ncthoclso Find.inc PlT2 and PU3 not thr:::li ca.nclicl or th2,t ·Gl:.o;r .. uoro not fully strcic1.1t forirn.rd in ·t:1.oir cvid.cncc, t~wro is not i.mch on nl:ic:2 ·:;o firnl the roG1,omlcnt t:;uilty ol' the c]·. o.rc;o of bcinc; ·forn1c.l in possession oI cooc1-.o suspected oj? l12.,vinc lJoon stolon or Lmlc..,r..cnlly o..cquirccl., The Ooo bc.cs of 50 l:.:_:. 02.Ch were lc'.'.,1r.full;r c10quirod by t~:,.c :rosponc.lcnt fro~.1 I--'io:10.nccl Enterprises., I :::'i'-1cl no r.10rit in -~ho n.l)i)Cn,l 11l1ich is heroiJ.Y' cliu;.1issod. Tl.le decision by -the loarncc7- trio.1 no,eistro/.:;o uas bo.socl on propc1~ cv.:uao.;don of tho cvic7-cncc on record. J'..Ji)GD. 16/2/90 Ordcrg Tho su0 <1..r 1_ oubjcct nn,ttcr oI -~J.1..0 cc.so,' is to be ho..J.1C.lcd over to the rcsponclcn-c at oncoo '\------"·, '\<.::. . . ._\~~. . ~.. .;:~ JUDGE • - 3 - 16/2/90 Hr·, Scn.(;'L:.ji, S,Ao :for tho ikpublio. Hr, ITucct1,clc:;-.1 lor -;;~~c Roopomi.c1"c. JuL'..(§:rnnt Lloli vorocl., JUJGD