19841017 TZHC Mbeya2

lIT TILt lIlOrl COTJTtT OF TiITZINIt iT - JDIYA itIL1LT JUhISDICTI.OIT (Itroly;, R1LGI ;hy) CRIHINAL [ OiL 012. 25 OTT 1-984 ORIGINiL CR1 IILtL CitE ira. 32 OR 1984 OF TILO DI TRIC -COURT 011 ILEJTT DISTtICT fT ILJE Defore II. -i. !i'a, 0sq., District Nagitrate. t D•7 , a OPELLi ITT 4STOIT S- LA, POTDEIT CIME: Obstructin ilnean Resourc , lOinent C/S. 22(1) of the Hujaan Resources Dreploment Jct J io.6 of 1933. J if D G II 0 N T DAHATI, J 1 g The Director of-Nublic ocecuilons has apealed af:s+ the acquittal of the.respondent in this case nacLe:: :icciicn TO of the J:a1sian1 Procedure Code for non-appearance of the complainant. hr. Tenba for the P.10.11 • argued that sectio:.: 193 of the oriiuinccl 0rocedure Code is to las need sparinpl and only a f t e r the court Is, a iiver i:ate2 the cause of ::on-apnearanco of the complainant. e prnecl, the disuicoal to e sot :asi'lu, The respondent opoossith: seithin noidoolT the dieniasel of 0cc charge. he record of the I) iotrict coert chars that the once Cane up before the Court for the let tine on 6/2104 and it was fixed fe:: another men -Lion on 8/2/84. The p1cc. of the rocrondent wac not tahen al;hont'h the chege was read over to the :c -asondent, The charge was obs'uctiin human recources Deployment L.ct Io.E of 1 903, On 0/2,04 a plea of ccl; puilty was entered Public rosecntor and the rescondent were QCt, T10 cage was fixed for hearing cc 21,234. (hi21,.2/04 the Public eesecabor was absent and the charge was Jionisseci u S. 100 of The Crininni 'recedur Code, I aTee with Lhc .:)Ln that the banned trial Nagi-trat should have had an inves ti 'aticn carried o;: -L to iIe tr:ine whitTierthe ncr .-np ceara.ce of the complainant was with acme {;ooh cnuoo ho case of L:;Inolerflaflv,R, 1969 H • C • . 262 i ne.evant here, In chat aces the accused ccc; cluittecl u/s. 24 of the Thi::iercc Osn:st: - OriasLaal ::re3 ( 5:a r c Codo. Georgeot.J. conpared s. 24 of the ri:asgr °ourt Climinal Procedure Code with 0.198 of the Criminal Frocedure Toc'c an: said tIii: i:; an ohitca: cite mc; - -2- • should note, however that the effect of disreissiut; a char3e under L1IC 24 of 2rir:ary 0ourts Crininal jrocedune ocIe or section 193 o the Criminal Procedure ode may well, in the final analysis, result in failure of justice. 1 Couplainant nay not aunar for reasons which are perfectly valid, and, an accused person as :bs this case 1iese uill could otho ise be clearly, dotahlished, it released. The section should be used sparin3ly and djournnn Is should no: :.Jiy ho 3ranted unless it is clear that the prosecution is delaying the fin.•l detersinabion of the rsattcr to such extent that it can be said that the accusecL person is being treated oppresivoly. The above diches is certai1=Ly ap;licable in this case. 1e case was hardly a month old end was ccnia{ for heenin; fcr hho first time. It could not be r.id ieee that the rosondët was baLng treated oppresively by the :soeecotias, allow the ausenu and so aside the di:niesal and aequjuctal order a. I order tht the case aroceel. :thc:i whore it tad cone t.s, At Mbeya, TI, 17th October, 1934 Court: Judgiient delivered in court on 17.10,340 Mr. Teesjbc. for Cppeilm.. For IespondE1st - present. • •n\ fl - o 17.10.34 Jd CF UTIE OthCINhL. / e 7