19770926 TZHC Mwanza

0 IN THE HIGH COURT Qli' T1rnZANIA AT ~Wl!NZA .APPELLATE. J~JhISDICTION ·.·. HI_gH~ ,OORT CRJ\HNAL 1-iPPE-Jii, · NO. 141 OF 1977 oOo . ' -~,ORIGINAL CRI'.l.fINAL CASE No._·270 ·oF 1.976 OF' .?:HE DISTiicT __ COURT .. OF. BIHARA"TULO DISTRICT AT. B1HLRi,:'1.1ULO Befor~: J.W. OGOLA, ES~., DISrRICT ~AGIS1RATE ============~=======================-=-------- ~DONA~D s/o NTP~BA : : : : . .. . .... .. . . . ... . . , .. ~ . . . . . AI'PE'LL~.NT ·. -·. versus THI' REPUBLIC .. .... . . .. . . : RE' SPOlvDENT 'S.ISYA, 'J..: _ The appellc:.nt :was convict_Ad on t.hre(:! counts: '.the. first two co1.µ1ts were of stea~ing by a: ,person .e11ployed in_ t_he pµ~lic,-ei'drvice contrary to Sections 265 ani 270 of the Pen&l Code, for which he was sentenced to three yesrs i_?')pr.is.o.n-rient on eac_h.coun~, anq the-tnir.d.count wa.s of ·-· ·des~roying evidence cqntrary to Section 109 of the .Penul Code ior .• which he wc:1s incqrcerated for six nonths. The sentences are to ran q.9nourre11tly. He is no_w appe2.lir+g ■ .. _ _ ,: I_t was e.stobli,sb~d at the· ti;1:ial .t:hc;1.,t the. appellant was, Gt .the ~ 1 'llater.~al ti11e·, a cle;rk;,, e"llployed ,by the ,Judiciory and ,a·ttaqhed· to, Runazi Pri 11clrY Court _in Bihara11ulo Dis,t.ri_ct •.. His. duties incliuded ,,t.qe, .. ·... collection of Gov::rn"llent revenue in the for11 of Court fines.~ahd:'.fee··s-~ On receipt of the said revenue

appellant would issue a reccip;t. He would.. the,i en;ter the reve·nue .to collected in the re·venue col.le c.tor s CpS~,z~ook _b.efore ~1:1,sequently ,aGco:un,ting for the sa1:1:9 by rE!\;niCt~ihg..the '.Tlon1.e s :Collected: into _the bank- on a 1'6 tter tra~sfer •· After ·re;:ni t-.ting the· 11oney the relevant books of- _?3ccou:nt ,woµld .tr,en ·be_ che ckad by- th€. !nte:rna'1 Re.venue Pff_ic_er, Bihara11ulo, ;i;9 .w-ho11 the said books we.re b.i' o.ug h.t _.- . . Evi_dence. _w,/s· given at the' t:ri~l ...PY: N[r·. Arrt_qni Nt~,i~e {P~a\~. the--:, ....._ Pr biary Cotirt ~a-gistrate ~ _Runpzi,, to the effect th?t on 4/9/74 tire · · _appe::J.la'nt did n?_t report _on du~y_. ,Apprehensive o_f the· fact."that he, appellant, had np.t r.e.11i tted any Govern11ent. reveriue to! tne, bank for ·. sonet:i'Tle ;\J'.r. Nta're ca'iie'a. for hi11 but tho appellant did not turn up on that da_y. He, however, did so _on the following day·during .day ti11e ·w~ereupon _·~1r. Ntare· itistructed hin to_ take the r~lev,n1t receipt·!'.l .to 't'iie ,Pistri,ct Cpurt foI' cn_ecking.' 'I'h~',,r:;_ppella_nt was t:hen seen,take . receipts,, the· cash book and two case f'ile B €:iH,l put. the $<=ill€ in ·a big; envelope as if he was preparing to go to the District headqu~rtors at ,Bihara11ulo. However ,.d ,6.00 .p.n. on- ;that sane doy the appellant and hid w:ife were seEn by 011e Bruno Kiiza1.

'-?'uhoza (Pw,3) board a bus 1 • d~stined -to Geita and not Biharci'llulo, 't!,le .. opposite .,direction. ·.en "9/9/74, 1~r~ Ntare· rec!2ived infor'!lation that the appell-ant was·at··his hous_e:: He, Ntar,e,· then ordered the arrest Qf the appellant: ·The '. · appellant was supsequently brought before· hi 11. Eventually, on : checking the appe)lant's accounts a:total of ·Sh •. 2,214/== ·wa·s found· to have been qollected by the appellbnt and.not account~d £or anywhere by hi 11._ ~I::• Nta_r_e_ -:~_$.ke_d,, the .:EJppella-n t to ·produce the "llOney hut ::t.~~ · 1atte·_r ~aile_d to do s_o .whereupon· ,he., Ntare, pl-aced the a_~pellant in the lock:-u~. ... •• I •• • • .At about ;7 .qo__p,. )!.--one Saidi :i'Jdyoya_, who, incichm tally; was charged jointly with the appellant at _th1.1 trial in Counts ti~o and= · thr·e<, ,rep~,r t~d on ctut_y as night watcb,:nan.- -11-Tr. N'tare handed ove:r · the· keys .:to- the office and l,ock up _ whe:r.e thG· appellant was. to hi n.. I , i - However, to his dis11ay when he reported on duty on the following 11orning he, i.e. ~r. Ntare found the lock up wide open. Neither the appellant nor Saidi, the watch11.san, was prese·n:t. · Later, however both appellant and Sc:1idi rsturn~d and Saidi handed be1ck .the'keys to "Tr. Ntare. when quarried. Saidi apologised ·for what he had done to 111r. Ntare. Thereafter when ~r. Ntare opened the cup board

where bocks of account used to be kept he found the receipt books, cash book ar,d·· two cose files which the ~appellarit wa~ originally supposed~to ~ake with hin to Binaramulo missing. l\s a result o{" i::i search the SE were eventually retrieved from a pit latrine nearby. . ~- • .! . ·..-:::: . .. liccording to ~r. Ntare the cupbol!rd where the. books. of .accoµnts were bein,g kept hc!d two.keys each of which was "being kept by hinself, ··i,e. \1l'. ·Ntare, and the appellant. The key kept by the appellant was never withdrawn fro11 hin. · Richard Kalosha (PW4) who described hi11self as the Internal Revenue Officer, Bihara11ulo, testified to the effect that on 2/8/74 he checked the appellant's books of ao00W1i.--- Fr-on the r-:: ce ipt book he found that a total of Sh. 1 1 390/45 had bei:m collected by the appel;l.1:mt~ -~◊-~ever only Sh. 532/45 had been c:1ccounted for by the appellant·~ .. When asked where the balance of Sh. 858/c was the appellant replied that he forget it be hind.; Eventually' t.tie appella:r:it was allow,id. to go back and . he went and fetched the· 11oney "Which he· 'bank~_~ or( 5/8/7 4. • . . ; :. · ·!•,; ._ -The ·11oney,, Sh. 858/c, is ·the subje~t 'iia)~iir in. count _qne whereas Sh~ .. 2,214/= i.s.the subject 11atier in Co·u:nt"two_- :· · · : ,. . i ,.. -... •', .' ": •... 1-. In his sworn statenent in defence the appellant.the· truth of 'the charge in

all the three counts. _In count one he. ad11'i'tted collecting a total of Sh. 1,390/45 an'd banking' -only· _532/45 on 2/8/]4• .. Acco:rd'ing to h;i.11 he forget the b,;rlance, Sh. '858/=, in the cup'.t,oard·at Runazi.:-:He, •"nowever, went b_ack and found the noney which he ·subsequently:-t:ianke·d on 5/8/74... · . · . : ··on co~t two the a.ppellant conceded that hP. c6ll~~ted:-,a to:t~i:·,of 1 ~ Sh~ .2,214/c en the receipt books; E.'xhs. ·p.r_t;in/-P._2~·'.~owev.(;!-r ,' before • ' •- •' ._ • ( • i' I ' he,went to bank.the ,sc.'tie he wrnt on a very shor"t 'leave_ with e·f.fec.t~fro11 4 ·,•: :3;1/8/7 in order to undei'go a cere11ony o·:r ·\1riiiia~e:~ .~~ev-t?rthete SB;: -he handed ov,er the: 'Tloney to-11i1r. :Ntare '(PWl) i.tf'writing. He rep.orte'a,.on duty on 9/9/74 at 10.00 a.11. The Prin&ry Gou.rt \fagistrate, ~r. Nfare, then ordered his arrest and detention in the lock up. He, appellant wc1.s. s~c:1rc~ed but. nothing was found 6!1. 4i'.ll_.· N£vertheless .he was placed in the lock up wherB he spent the n:i.gpt~ .. H~· 'r1as re_i-iovP.d: on· .the: following 'Tlorning only to. be told that he and· \b'.e night· wot~h;n,an hadt stol"en receipt fro11 the .office.. Subsequ~n tly ~e w~i;;'·'crwrged. ~i.th, 1Pe off'ence s~ • • • • • ;. • • r ~ • • . . . ·- . '..... . . ( . . . ' . .. . . . On :th~. third count the appellant de_T,!i.ed seeing his .co-accused,- Saidi, a\.an,;y-

ti'Tle while he, appellant;:wa~--in·,:the_ 'iock-up until· the following day at l_0.00 a.11. He also den~e-d 'kee'pi'ng _·any keys to the cupboard where t,ne· books of account· ·we-r1":· kep-C: ,... '· ·, ·· · · . Tl)e appellant ·called onP, witnes·i,i · at t'he,'trial on€ Norbertus '..,.•Wa'Tlabuta (DW3), a 11essenger of tw':!lVe years staridihg an·a al~o -attached to Runazi Fri-nary Cour_t. :He, Norbertus; t'est'{fi°ed to .the e.ffect on 9/9/74--acting on fostructionf;l given by P,il he went and arrested the appellant. -He took the appepant to PWI. Thereafter· M the 9 pp~llant hand over sa~. to PWI ·soiie book.s :of aca6unt which the· l~tte:r ihecked in his own presence· as ·we.ll~~s in the presence of ·the ,appelia~t. · After th-at PWI askecCt:tie appellan~rfor cash but the ·appellan'ti h~d,·n~D;e.. Eventually t,h~ _°Q9oks of. acc<>unt ..:were ·put in a big envelope_ wheT.e I apparently·, -'they o:ri'ginally. were •. T,he s·o·ici env·elope' was in turn pL,iced in t.hc· .cu.pboard which was then locked by PWI. The appellant ·h111sel{ was placed in the lock-up. On the following -norning he, Norbertus, was i3lso .. pre sent when PWI op~n,e_d the c_upboard :to collect the: books· of· a~courit. · • Tli.e. big env:lp.pe: :w~s· there hut ~:h:.:~ books t~e,rs~lv~s wer.e_.not'__ there. Lat12r, on. ~nfor~ation Jeceived; fro-n-Saidi who· wa~ night.watch11an on. duty DW3', PW! pl:ld

others· se•a.rched tne surrounding ·aiei ,.md the pit latrine which was nearby. Eventually tMy found tne said books in the pit latri~e fro11 where they were then recovered. • ... /3 j In answer to a question put to hi~ by the learned Public Prosecutor . DW. J'. said. that the _}i_upboard 4ad two keys eac}:l of which was being kept by PWI:and. the ,appeJiant •. In, convicting the appellant· ori count· one. the lea~ned trial ~agistrate .:·directed hi11self in. the _f:91:iowing teriis _and r quote fro11 the judge11ent:- ... .. . ~To be precis~ the acic~sed pcr~~n-Donald Nti11ba · h 9_s accepted tni:: stat';:11ent in. the first 9.01,U'l.t but deni;~d._only,'one fact that hfl stole the· .. ,cash of ·sh. 858/-= in the firs:t coub.t. He alleges t~at ~e si~ply, f~rgot tne cash in the safe and o:qly ca11e. \ii th ~nother pa:r.t · of_· the revenue ho . colle~ted· vi.de ·c.F'~F.Ro Noo 343008 to 343032 • . ,.The total .a'Tlount collected was Sh. 1,390/45 during .. the il~nth of Juli 1974 ~rid wciuld hdve &ll=being ~{sic) banked on 2/8/74. But the accus~d person Don"ld N:ti11ba onty banke'd Sh. 532/45 only and '. f;j.ole· Sh-~ 858/,.,c. - Here the acpused alleges: _that 1 . he never stole. that 11oney but he forget -it in his station. · Be it true tp.at he forgot i't tit ·ho11e, . the fact re:nains 'true t°hat. the· accused: account<Id for less he colL,cted and .h•.= bc1nked that less'

cash. lind when he· wa·~ che.cked by L11~0" the· le_ss of' cash Sn. 858/-= was discovered. i;nne_dic=d_-:.ly a_:ft_er _he •. . banke~ the_ Sh. ·532/45· o_i:1_ the '.f/8/T4._" ·He· .was asked of :th'e ·re st of tb./ 11.oney'· ,Shi, ·g~;3/,,,; shor.tage O .• He .:ha·d no tha.:t' 11on-2y ii-i hi.s pe":rso"ii', '~e ~as arr~s:ted . and. taken to' . h.i.s.-.,s_uperior thc/'Dfstr.ict·, '.,fagist~·ate .. 'on the v.e ry da•y/ '.'2/Bh 4. wh.o c.il so' qisc'o¼fr~y-:·:t-ha~f· the re . · a ·;horta.ge ),/ ·sh~ 858/,,; f'rp,11 the'. ~d:,,tal ~.;n·o-uht ()_f . Sh: .. 1, 390:/45, co1Je.~te·a. i:ij Jpe_· ._ff:r--~tc a c,cii."s:: ;i ~ -· Under F'inancial. R§igulatfons'.. jhi. ~offe'ri¢e. \Ja~ "aTrea.dy_ . co1111i ttea.;· :a{ that poi'n,t~· :: ;(t ~:s· true . ·t'hat the_. accus.ed cl~-{11s that h~t f~-rgo-t· the c1,i~· 1 sho:r±age .: in )1is. office, but ·unfrotu:•'.1.::i~:,..:i'y he has- riot p_o:i'.p.ted ·out any se-ction· o{ the lcli'JS or Reguli::_:tio,ns ,wh{:z,h ··- . j.usti:(ie.s such forgdfuln(:Sso :And :af:1 .a ':la_t·te.r.'pf fact: when t~e· ·accus~d f~{~:;d to ,oc~ou,p.t fqr·j1,(· :: ;. cash he .collected he _.00.uld. allege anythin.g to; .. convince· the exa11iner of -~h!3. ·,acco:u;.1ts to ·le 1t., hi11 .fre'.: as that he.. 11ay~ n:fteiwar.ds.•re'.pay the -a110:tµif t·o ~he exa.11iner -or 'the. own<i:i:-'. 1 B).it even tho.ug·h ·: t-ha t · would he the con.tentfon .. _o{ the · accused

pi:i'r·son stilJ. the offence was alrriady. co1rni tted _by the . definition of ·theft under Section 258(2-)(e)' ~f ·.the ~inal Codeo ·so ~ithough the accused tiji~k~ tb~t . _t.he ·vragis_tr~te ·gave hi11- ti11e t'o repay the cash· stolen · .Sh.· 858/= and 'i'n actual fact _thf3 acc_use¢l _pc'rson did · indeed repay .t.he · ·whol~ ~,tol'en a.11ourit on· the ·5/8/74 still I 11ust rc11ind .the ·acc_ul:i!3d that the '11agistrate used his 'cunning and wise :ne'·'::hod to re stor·e for the Go.vern11ent the publj_c .J'.'evcnll(.! which accused hod al.ready :st.olen; l\r1d· so r ·convic't .hi1i~-" .. . . . . :~ '. . . .. . . ' . .. . ' . · W'ith respect, ·this parsoge bristles with 'TiJ.sdirections and ~isap- plication of the lawo i;ccording to the 13Dr:'.led Y · i,r; ;r.,.·ti the fact that the .appellant indeied. br.ou.gh~. the 11.cney .whioh_.he.1 . i.e,, ;.;t~e appellant, T• origin_any. clai11ea.· ,to:. have fo'r,go·~;t'en be.hino.: alb-eit. i'r.i''{u..11,. is irrelevant ·, be··cause .. ·11 unde,r° Financial_ Re'guiat_:i.on~ tpe b£-fence w~s already· :co1111i tted .• 11 1 .. ,·, Cle;3rly, _the learned_ :"Tagis:tra·te here ·w.as· ob1ivfous of'. the fa~t that the . . : '. chargi. ag·ainst· -the appeliant i~ u.-ider the· Penal .Code· and· no·t the F•inancial -·: . .. · Reg1,1la.fions~. It iiay perhaps~ ·be pointe~ ou_t· for the .b.·en.eiit.·of the learned e: . '• .. 'fa:gis tr:a fe

that' ai though ·a,. hr€ a ch· .,_i or ·a.e part ur :fJ" 011'.. f illcJ~c.ial regtilatiops 11ay_"forii pc;Jr·-t of' the. e /:de,nc·e of t°hef°:t, :..t; ·per se 1 by no 11eans affords pon'clus°i3,-e proof.of .the sailer ... that ,is to r;ay_~.p.~t a theft has been C()"'T}·11{tted in_ aC:cordance. w:i th the p·rovisions. pf ~he Pe11:a1 .Cod_e. j)gain, as c·an be obse.rv,2a: f,ro11. the .. p·ass/:igf3 q,uoted. above;. +,he learned· "1agistrate SE".l11S . to have· re'J~:9te·a,-- :the ·a·ppellan·:t is· _expJ.anc:,bon of t.lle cash shor.tage at .·. Bihar,a_11:ui'p.( 'ria.~e'iy that he :t'ori;o:t :~he'. re "1l~in~.~;g SU1l beb.;i.nd~ .~i ilply ft . . . . . /4 ,,, . 4 ·: { lie;~~use;·he·f i.e. the appellant·, did"not poirit out./:! pr·ovision of any .. •piece •,of''legislation which justified forgetfulness. This is·. c utrageou Perhaps ·,mknown to hi'Tl what, in effect,· the lec::rned 'fagistratc did her~ was to shift the burden of proof fro~ the p~qsecu~ion to the ._appellant;· This was wrong. This being·a cri11inc!ll case_~he duty to - ! .' prove ··the sa'Tle rested throughout· on· the prosecution and at no sta~e did it shift to the appellant! 'I'hP.refore by requiring the appellant tO •~6int·out ·a Section of· tfi law or regulations which justified forgetfulne:ss, even if tLe· sa11e Gxisted, · . the learned NTagistrate seriously 11isdirected ·hii'lself ·on the burden of proof in the

instant case. On 'TlY part, with respect, it· sOllllds preposterous for anyone to expect legislation on such for11 of hu11an shortco'!ling .or weakness as forgetfulness. If I nay go further, again, by invokir1g provisions of section 258 s\i-bsection ·(2} p'a~agraph (e) of the F:::nc.l Code to tne circunstences of this case the learned 'ifagistrate errbd in law. As afore11entioned the cppellant, in his defence on count I at the trial, said that he forgot the 11oney, t.he subject natter in -that ·c:ount, behind at his station. Indeed, on the evid~nci• on r8cord,· ~~n he was permitted to go bac:k'arid collect the noney he did so. and ·returned, albeit after a day or ·two, . •'with the 0 11ount_ o'f noney und,er querry. This defence raised by the' ai;pelL,nt was ·n·Ot challenged,. nor w:::s it contradicted, •· at th~ trial and· he has 112tint~ined it on appe2.1. I do not hesitate to say that the d_efence raised ··by ·the appellant at the trial still stands. However', for reasons which I" d):/ not pre·t~nd to know or speculate the learned \fagi·strate appears to· have either 'Tlisunderstood or misread his own record by saying thc<t the app~i,1ant was given tine to £CfaY the stolen cash. This· wa~ not corre'ct·~· '.[10 beg;i.n ·with the. learned "'fagistrDte clearly prejudged the issue rif th~ft. Secon;Hy, the view taken by . the learned--'·"Togistrcite is not

supported_by_qn,y"evidence on rocordc The ·appellant~·' justifiably, argi,ied tha:t,theft of the a'Tlount chc1rged in Gaunt I had ~ot'.6~en· ~stabliihed •. Thei~~ i6dj~~, is a lot of difference betw~en:~eing giv&n 1 ti'Tle to go ~nd·~6llebt ~bri~j forgotten behind and b~ing ~iveri ti~e to·~epay th~ 11o~ei stol~ri or used. Section 258(2)(e) of ,the PP.nal Code ·covers ·the latter situ~tion·:'i:n~t n,Rt tJie former. In the. instant c;;;se' 1 the ref ore, in the absence ·of anj2t1i1'1ct the appellant int·ended -to use ·the 'Tloney at his will or thLt. the ,,oney which he •indie~d fetched was not the sa11e as or was differ'ent fro11 the money coll~~ted by hi'n as Govern'llent rev.enua I cann~t say that th(' offence in Count l w~.s .e.stablished beyond· any peradvE;nt1he of doubt. The position would', ·n'o.'.Jdo·ub't·,. have be~n .d~f:f'erent 'h~d th'e '])}strict 'fogistrote, Bi·hal'a'Tlulo. acco11panied the ·a1)p·eI1ant ;~o :_~he:pe. t~e latter said the 'TlOney was· forgotten and found nothing of. the ,s;ci,;rt~' This, however, was not .~·-the posi tri._on in' this ·case. c.n<f ''th~t. ~..s· w~Y ;ch~ :appellant's clcJi 'Tl that he forg13t th,e: ''rioney behind still stands. uhs,h"',ken.., In addition to this ·.'.fr. Kalos·hd>(i=>w4~ ,: '°the Inte-±ina~f Re·ve:i:iuo Ol'.f'fc:'er cor,ceded thbt the appellant·.entere·d the a11oun:t under querry co~rectly in the Revenue :.,.Collector-s

cash·book. To 11y·11ihd; in all the circunstc:inces of this 1 ' ; · case this .rreg2itives· a· finding":of the existence. ;f an intent to use . :t:t:te . 11oney at the· will'' of the~ 1.(p'pellan t~ · .. - All in ~11; I feel it-wi1r· not be saf~ ·t6 .. sustain the conviction in- Count --I and·'as the Republi~ 'did not suppor-t it the sane is hereby quashed and the sentence p~ssed thereon is, accordingly, hereby set aside. : Turnin·g to· count two it is now ~;.mio,nknowle.dge tha·t the a110unt in the charge, Sh. 2, 214/c, · which wc:s Govcrri:ne_nt. ·Nvenue c:_o:lle-cted by the appe:llant ·was stolen. The only que·stion that has, to bo considered .-i.s, who .stole the noney? The appe·llarit ln his· defence at -tihe trbl ·stated that he ·hdnded over the 'Tloliey· ·to the }'ri-nary Cour't ··~agi.strate, "if~. Nt'are · (Pi,JI.) when h~, appellant·, w1nt on a. short leave to _11arry. , ,;.- The learned trial \fagistrate. was not i11prt.:ssed by th~· def-ence. r·aised by ;th,~;1.,,app':!ll·ant. and- I think he wai i1erfectly' e.ntitled t.o do ... so •. lis con be gleaned.from tne recor·d of_ proceP.dings in the.l,01,.re:r ,Cowt at no st<ige . dlll'ing what appears to· };;:ive been a lo!fg c:ind ·:unspairing. pross-exanination /'"··· did th~ appellant question·~r~ Nfare_(PWI) about.the alleged handing over of tte cash~ .Again, aq6oidirig to N9ib~tris Mwa~bbuta (DW3), who was .~ .· ,

~U:n"!)oJH'd to· give evidence oh the ai::pellcmt' s own .:appl~qa:tiony ,l'hen {,. . ,' ' • ;.•.• '. :~ ,;·. . } 0 •••• / 5 .j ..,,-r. Ntare asked the c:!ppellant the whereabouts of the noney the latter replied that it was at the District Headquarters, BihaNJnulo. No 'Tlention was 11ade thet he, appellant, had handed it over to ~r. Ntaro. Vi'wa-nabuta told the trial court that he was present when 1~r. IHare chGcked the appellant's books of account and denanded the cash fro11 the appellant. In the light of all this it beco-nes transparently clear thbt the · appellant's allegation of handing over the 'Tloney to 'fr~ Ntare is an afterthought and consequently incapable, of raising any reasonablA doubts in the nind of any Court of law worth the title. In his petition of appeal the appellant clains thut he tendered the handing over state:n1.:nt in evidence at the trial but the learned trial :nagistrate ignored it in his bid "to ~ave his fellow Magistrate (PWI)." Frankly, I see no subste1nce in this clai:n which I therefore disniss without further consideration. Equally naive and devoid of any nerit is the appellant's clain that his witness, ~wa:n2buta (Dw3), was coerced into giving ... ,.. false evidence by threats issued by the prosecution~ On ny evaluation of the evidence like the learned ~agistrute, I an satisfied that the appellant coll8cted the noney and failed to account for

the sane. The only reasonable inference is that he stole the noney and I find this as a fact. In short, the conviction in Count two is sound and I accordingl;y uphold it~ Now, turning to the third count there is no dispute that the reli:v,mt receipt books were found in and recovered fro11 the pit latrine. The said receipt books were the very ones which for11ed the back-bone to the charges in counts one and two in Cri11inal case No. 270 of 1974 (Biharanulo District). i1ccording to the evidence of l,,,J'r~ IHare (PWl) and :.fwa-nabuta (D\rJ3) which the learned "'Tagistrate believed the said receipt books (Exhs. PI and P2) were in the cup board on 9/9/74~ The appellant sp;rnt the .night ~n the lock up which was being guarded by the second accused w~o··,,1so ht:!d custody of the keys into the Pri11ary Court building. On ;the evidence available there was no one who would· be interested in tne receipt cooks other than the appellant. No doubt the appellant :nust have known that the said receipt books would be required in evidence against hi11 as he was then already under apprehension. Inde1:d no one tEstified to seeing the appellant take tne receipt books and danp tne11 in a pit latrine containing excreta~ But, on the evidence on record, I hasten to say that the circu11st~nces of the case irrGsistibly point at tne appellant as being the person who took the receipt books in question

znd~ no doubt, delib~rc,tely destroyed the11. Ti1erefore, I a11, •again like the let.rned trial :-.fugistrate, satisfied that the prosecution sufficiently established the ch~rge in count three. The conviction is, thus, accordingly upheld. The septence inposed in count two which, incidci:itally, is the substantive•· tern to be served, by the appellant, is the 11inimu11 ter11 of inprison:nent preseribed by the law itself. At any'rate the sentence of six 11onths i11prison11ent in count 3 can hurdly be said to be excessibe. I therefore, leave it undisturbed. In the final result save for the appeal in ~ount I which has been allowed the appeal in Counts two and three is h~reby disnissed. Delivered in Count at :l.fwanza this 9th 1'1ebruary, 1978. HIGH COURT ~WANZA 9TH FEBRUlRY, 1978: .,. ,l 'I1 M~lllNZJ~ ·.r?:~_!:_L.',T:T: JtJ.L3J ICYiON ti.J..;}d .;. vL Ci:U,.'J.l."'··,°L i,F?il,,',l.J NO. ·137 OF 1977• ~O:x:-4';ina 1 Orim-inal :::;- :Jc; -:-.--.-,,; 339 of 1976 0f the D fate ict C·-;:•J;'t of . .~spenge..ti District :;t Sero~i:.:;r:·: - ~L.i.•~·ro v. LcmnGe, tisCI•i Dist.riot M2~ist.-_.a~ . MENK I MA ~uo· .. • ♦ ~ • e ~ ~ ~ ::, , '° f t;J ~ ;> 0~ ,) 0 ;). • .-• • ". 0 ~-e ~ iJ . . ,.) •~ p'ff;L~-.A NT • .• • • •• :> • • . . . ':· P • D • Q. • .'..~ . · VGrl:jUS , . . _ . TJIE ·~EPUB-ifl~ •• ~ •. ;-o·,, o • • .,,o\"·"-~. • ~., •• -.~· •. ;·•• , ~: ~. •··• .:·1.•• o. o •• • o

4Ji1~SPONDENT & ~· -~-· ..... .~,:,.,; ,.··:-··:.. ~- / . CI-I1:,11"GE: Stealing '.::j r,:,;.;-{1; 'c/s 2·73(b) of the Pen.::il CoJ0e J li.JG.~~f:ENT SISY.1\ 1 J.: ,1 The appel1qnt w~s convictGl of Ste3ling by 3gent ~nJ ~a. w3s santenc.aJ to eight20~t !~D"\ths i:r.>~isonment. Ha is n(,w .'.'lp}',J~'.Jing. EviJ.en~e w3s ;;;i;:J;; o.t· foe .trisl which est1blis-,hi.lJ. ·i;i,."t the appellant w::1s 3 1 tu.r:.i. ~/·:;;r" ·.-Jf: 3 ·ous ::inj his Juties were to 102d. and. off load p:rnsengers 1 lut-?i-::01:f:b•:·;on ':ln:l from the roof rack of the bus.. On the mat-,3riJl da;f th~ c:.,mpl2in:1nt in the case, 3. Police Officer, who was travelling home on l ··ve h·::rnd:;J. his lugiag'3 to the ;1ppelJ.;;;1t who in turn placeJ the s~me on th0 r0of r~ck of thd bus in which ha 1 P~pall3nt, was on duty and in which thu complainJnt intdnlal to travel. ~vdntually, however, .before tn.~ c ....-,.1pl2 j nan t bo3 .cJeJ the bus it l.L'ove off, leaving him, f.e. the compL:LLat, behinJ. It se3ms Jue to probJ.,:;ms of transport which Jrc notorious .;i.c•·,·..[:;h to escc.pe judicial n,Jtice the c-,mplainant f'::' il 3d to get =:rn,,th8l' 7.1-. r.:: on tint s·sm ~ :.13y. He, however 1 •..Li.d on the following J.:=:iy but ;..rlh.).'l ::-J ;-rnnt to ,mquire 3bout riis lug&;:ig..; frGm the appe]lqnt the lattar -~0uiaJ any knowl.a~ge cf its whereab0uts. The appellant w<is than .-:-:e::,;·.- ·i;e-:t

::ind. subsequently ch1rged. In his def3n._-:·~ t ;:::.e tri31 the ':'.ppe.cl3.nt .:ilmitte:c ·:;_;,_::,t he was· a "turn boy' ahd on JLty na th8.m':lt;:;rial Jay. He, howev-.::r 7 cnuld not recall taking the compl2in3nt's luggage. Jccorling to thu appellant after lo,Uing or off lo::-,:ling psss.:mg0rs' lHggage he .~oul('. signal to the conductor who woull, i:1 turn, sign'Jl tc the -lriv0r to l0.c:v0. In his ju-lgemc::rc the lGarneJ tri:il magistr3.te W'1S 01 the opinion that the 1ppe~_J.9nt'::; c~~,nicil of ,;iny knowle.lge of the _cr:·mpl,..,i!i,nt's lugg3ge did not m:1ke c1ny s,:moo :.,~1d proce2J.e-i to convict him• It is t.cue t0 o y t~2t tha norm91 pr3ctica ~luli a9pu2r to ba that the 'turn boy' is re:ci;:::·.:;1:::;:ible for the lo:=ding and off 102-.:..:ing p<issengers luggage. The luty to 0~1Sure th-1t ~11 p"lSS•.:?ngers 1ro on bc.,.c'.rd bef0re t=lke off is, howi~ver 1 -i;j_1>i; of t.he conductor. Therefore, th0 sign':ll by the 'turn boy' to trw c,~nd.uctor c:rn only be to the eff}c·c -:~h-·.t the former has come clown from th"" roof rack af the bus and not n.JcsJso;~rHy thJt all the passengers 3ra en iX>2.rcl. /lg::,in, it is rn::::ot to obse.cve th:;it ,llthough a 'turn boy' m3Y remember the fsces of somo cf the passengdrs who hsniad over their luggage to him for 101:iing l1c· G'·nn,'t be axpccte•l to remember all. Wh:~t I should therefo.cc imagine h~JJ0n8 in most

cJsss is th1t thd•turn boy' relies upon the word r:if the:, J,··r;::rnn::.;ers when it c0mes t•:; the ilentific-=1tion of their luggage.; In the circumst:1nces it is, it sa2ms to me, possible for a passenger to cl3im :,n;/ lug0·:;1ge, feloniously or otherwist,, 0s his. Furthermore 1 ::.t scums highly possible tl1=1t on arrive.J. ::it its destination or termi::i.:;l 2.n;,n:me C.:J u.ll. hgve off loadeJ th0 lu:, 6 3ge ':ls it must have .:ippe2rel -i;;::, i1~1v8 ·no owner. IHl in Jll, alth•::ugh there is sufficient eviJ,:rnce t·, ~;l1.o'~v th.-, t tha .:ippelLrn t is the 0i10 i-r~to received the complain3.nt' s lL\'.;',,,,·,, ?.nd plrn.:;.i the s::1me on thG r':of r:wk of the bus there is no evi,lc:-i.::o to pr,,ve th~t he, appell::mt, is the ,1110 who stole the S3me thereafter. :::n all th::: circ.umst,rnces cf the case I would even go further to say t::J.''."G I J.c• nut think it f::iir to pbce ttie bhme for the disappenr:ince of thu C·-'mpl2in.:1nt' s lugg.:1ge on the appellsnt. .. ,,·i•' ;~ .. -~_ ....t ::··(~: ~· ;,,,,,· ~•>-·~ · -~S~.nce th'e gi:i.i1t · ·ci'f the appellant was noj.-'i2stablished ·beyond doubt 'b'y',:the ·e\,iJ.ertce.. t.lie coz::iyj.,ction which, in any we.y,-' wos hot f supporte(i, :b.y the' :·le·~rnblic ~ can.- not therefore be allowed to stand. The .same. is accorj•ingly g'.t;1.r:'.sl1ec. s·n::f 'the- sentence is set aside·• It is' ., hereby qtreGteJ ·t113t the E:ppelltnt shDJld be, o:n less of course he is betrig ·held on some otl1cr bwful··charg~s, released from. pris_on forthwith. Delivered in opun court 9t Mwanza this 26th Septo~ber, 1977• .· // ✓ : / .,,.., H. 1£. ~. SISYl~ JUDGE. - . ( ..