N

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL. NP0 425 OF 1974 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CA3E NO0 532 OF 1973 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARUSHA DISTRICT AT ARUSHA Before NM; Mushi, Esq0, Senio' Resident Magistrate .ELIASAPH MAJURA 0 .0 0 ó 0 0.0 0 o e a o .................... o APPELLANT 0 0 0 0 (Original Atcused) versus THE REPUBLIC 000a 0006........... 00 0 RESPONDENT • . . . . . . (Original ProSeuto) Charge: 5 counts .of Forgery,.:l count of Frauduient fa'se accounting and icount of Stealing by a person ethplo'edin the Public 0 service. c/ss 335(d)(iv), 337, 317(b) and 20 of the Penal Code0 • 0 S S JUDGMENT S Jonathan, J. S .. The appellant was convicted of one count of fraudulent f'lse accouriting and aiother.df stealing by ub1ic servanc/ss 317(b) and 270 and 265 of the Penal Code0 He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonthent of 18 months and .3 years 1 respectively, and .odered to a" cornpenthation0 . S He,wasa Veterinary Assistant :ie1d Officer ttchOd to the Arusha Regional Veterinary. Office where he was specifically assigned to the duties of store keeper, which entailed, amoig other things, the issuing of drugs, vaccines and other veterinary equipment to various stationsincluding the Themi Holding Ground and Loliondo Veterinary Office.0 . He had a ledger for recording such transactions0 It would seem that each transaction required the writing, out of an issue voucher dly signed by the appellant as the iissing officer and the receiving officer0 Tha.eppellant would retain the original and the receiving officer. would have the duplicate of the issue voucher0 The charges relate to four issue vouchers showing that 10 dozens of needles., .400 tablets'bf ethidii:im bromide, 200 tablets of berenil and another lot of 200 tablets of berenil were supplied by the appellant to the Themi Holding Ground and that these stores were received by one Mafuluan officer of the Veterinary Department .attached there0 There is a fifth issue voucher to the effect that the appellant supplied 100 tablets of ethidium brornile to the Loliondo office and that they were received by the officer in charge there, one Mshindo0 These issues are duly recorded in the ledger maintained by the appellant 0 It was the prosecution case that none of the stores were issued • to the receipients shown on the payment vouchers. There was ample • evidence in support of this0 Firstly, there were the accounts of Mafulu and Mshindo that they did not receive the stores and that they did not, in fact, make the signatures that purport to be theirs0 Secondly, there is the evidence of thesenior Government audftor that the appellant upon being interrog.ated by him admitted to have forged the signatures of Mr 0 Mafulu and Mr 0 Mshindo0 Thirdly, Mr 0 Kiiza, the handwriting expert was clear in his evidence that the disputed signatues had no resemblance with tne specimen signatures of the to veterinary officers 0 Finally, in the case of Mshindo, there is uncontroverted Mi:0 evidence that on the date he •iS said to have received th stores and ie signed for them he had already handed over the station to another officer following his call-up for national service0 0 0 .... /2 0 0 2 The appellant in his vic••ènce admitted signing the issue vucherS0 He would also seLm to admit making the relevant entries in the 1odger0 It was however his, jefence that he had issued the stores to the two veterinary officers0 But, this was rejected b the learn:d senior resident magi.stsat as he then was, in hiss ju'gmnt0 In view of the considerable prosecution cviderice before hin, hç was clearly entitled to do so, and he cannot be faulted in his finding, that the stre's"had not in fact been issued as suggested by the defence0 It followed inevitaoly that the entrte8-1 :1e ledger wer,' 'false and fraudulent and that the appellant stole the stores shown in the issue veuchcrs0 There is crtainly no therit in the appeal and but for the record of the lower court being rather illegkble it would not.have been admitted to hearing0 Apart from the counts on which., the convictions were made, the appellant was also charged on 5 counts of forery relating to the fivL issue vuchers0 The senior resient magi.trate considerdd, however,"that the issue voixchers as such had not been foroed and he acquittod him of thse charges0 The Republc has not anpealed from such acquiti-al, bu± 11r Mwipopo the learned statd atl- orney1 at the hearing of this appeal suhmittd that the forgery charges were proved and asked the court to express an opinion on the matter The d- arges were framed under paragraph' (d)(iv) of section 335 of the Penal Coe0 The issue vouchers though they were apparently put in as exhibits are not in file for my perusal, but from the judgmert of the lowLr ccurt it would appoar that in each case no name is given as that of the receiving officer, nor is his designation indicated0 1 The appellant said theitgms. were received by Mafulu and Mshindo and they'd'ui/ signad fbr'the'm, but the is'ue vouchers do not themselves disclose anynamds'th,at W . e,re personated; they show no more than that,thé stor.as were , received and duly signc , d for. It dOes not, theref ore, say it is other than what it in fact is I ip,o6ld accordingly share the view of the lower ccurt th - t the documLnts wro not forgedQ In the result, the appeel is disthissed in its etirety. /cwm (P M. JON THAN JUDGE ( 0, • • . ' •••- ' ' . - . I • .••- - .