19770222 TZHC Tabora

?k- IN THE }IH COURT CF TANZANIA

AT TABCRA APPELLTE JU11ISDICTICN (Tabora tegistry) 1976 (wc) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 335 OF ...........'OIGINAL: CRIMINL CASE NO. 195 OF 1976 OFThE -. -• . CCUPT CF iiAs - DISPRICP AT

DISTRICT .

NASWP Before: 14. D. Nchalla Esqa, District Magistrate. - ''• . .. ,, .'. ': . ( / L.. • • • • • • . . . . ... •,. APPELLANT E1'BASI tIJLV4. . . . . .... . .. . .. • r versus A THE REPT.H3LIC .'. . . • . ......... . . , . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPONDENT 14 1 • CHARGE. Corrupt Tiansaction c/s 3 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act No. 16/71. JU-DI3NENT SiSY.i, J: . . . .... .• I' The appellant was charged with and convicted of.Coupt Transaction Ccntrry.to Section ,3 (a.) t.ition'.of Corrptin'Act1 No. 16 of 1971 and he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, lie is nw appea1ng. .. Evidence -s i'ren 4át th6 trial ti' the effeèt 'that' on 23/2/76 one SELEJIO KJANI (PW,3) hadhiswrjst his house. On 28/2/761 he saw it with the appellant at a watch •' -repairer's woricshop'%lhereu L)pfl he, all ' Police. No. C. 23l6 P.0 SAID (PW.i) accompan,ied him to the hnci the appellant. Eventually he, Saidi, scone and apJreeed began to lead the appc1lnt to the Police Stat.on. b.th them, i.e. Saidi.and ppe1lant, ,yore another.PolibeTCbn.table, JORAM(PW.2), (PW.3)., and EDWARD MANYIKILA (PW.4).. Ther;:was also the usa1 crowd which escorts a supposed tt ii _zi". Whil on the way the appel1ant'ased P.C. Saidi±'cta tete--tete ta1k whereupon.thé'twoof them,i.e..appellant and Saidi, tepped .:as±de. 'PW.2, PW13 and P4 4 waited and o.bserved - frcmbüt,óñe pace away from them. At' 11 once the

appellant put his right hand into his pocket and took' out ther.efrni three currency netesóf Shs-.20/ each and one Shs, lO/ currency note and handed over thesme to Saidi while saying, "take this Shs.70/ so that you leave me free bedause this watch- is.- not' mine. I -bought it' fr5,ñ someone else". Saldi received the money and, instantly, told the apel1ant that he was arresting him a second time for cor -uption. -'PW.2, 4. and vd.tne.ssed what tràxisied' between theapPellant and Saidi and they c onfirme' what. Saidi had said. In a long and tedious story the appellant, in his defence, told the trial court that on 28/2/76 bought the wrist watch under querry from one Emmanuel Sukwa who did not testify at the, trial for Shs. 50/. HoweVe', since it, was defective he sent ita' ?Ifun for repairs. The said "fundi" looked at the watch-which.,,.. incidentally, according to the appellant was defective, and went away. Later the "fundi" returned and told him, i.e. appellant, . . . . . . . . . /2 S . r. ,. • ...... . c :'-•: :.. .. . ,:. -. .. .-, .:: ...• • ::.' : - .,.. ". . •.• •' i.- .'.. . . ... :;: . - .: 7_i..t.)• : .!. •. - : • to pay Shs. 351= for therepairs. The. appellant to1' him that he & did not have t1 money whçxu pQr •Q I3 wrist atGh w *ra returned to him unrepairod. . There&fter, as he 1 appe1Iant, left the workshop . . three peopl,e. one of whom alleged to be the the

wrist watch, apprehended hin ad deman1e the watch. He refused to give them until the koiie came and thernaker's name of the watch was mentioned. Eventually the Policeman who cne began to escort him, i.e. appellnt, to th ?olice Staticn. The three persons who apprehende&J - ;m ini±ially accoripanied theo. On the way the Policeman 'was joined. .by. another Tolicmanwho held his, i.e. appellant's, other hand WhiJe they were s.ti13 on their 'ay to the Police station the ?oli tcemenorder the crowo of people who were following them to go back. There remained himself, 'the two POlIcemen 'arid hiá ftiree original captors. Thereafter, the first Policeman orderedhimi.e. the appellant, to stop 7. and he did so, whereupon the same Policeman asked him if he had any money. He answered in the negative. The said Policeman then said that he wanted some money to buy some Soda..The'-appella- nt wont on to tell thetrial court •nhis defncetht thereafter the Policeman .took out Shs... 7O/='fiom his,. 1 i.e. appellant's, shirt pocket while querrying the appellant why he' had denied t he had some money. he, appel1an, replied that t) .4eney did not belong to him but nevertheless the Policen'an took the rioney and in the presence of more thiri ten persons.. When he, appellant, tr.ed. to.,pr.test the Policeman asu1tedhitn on,t1e head. Later, on his arrival at the Police Station he complained

aout,,'t-he ident b u t he 4ras assaulted and silensed again. The appellant called one witness at the trial. The said witness, oneR0BE1T DOTtC, reiteratot what the appellant said n h i s defence. In a litcid nd carefully easoiied judgment the learrd trial Magistrate rejected the defence toxy and aceptec' that of the prosecution. He, i.e. the trial hagistrato, Ucs sa 1tisfied .that the appellant gave P.C. Saidi the Shs. 701= corruptly. In hi spetition of' appe,.l the 'appellant doees not raise any new line of defence except a re petition of rhat he said in his defence at the trial and protesthtions of his iithocenco. Oil in e.ivaluatin of the evidence I am satisfied that the learned tn agistrate was perfectly entitled in rejectipg the efence tory, which, I must say, contains such obvious lie th t r'tdiciile:'the irit'ellect. TheDr:osecution eviderie,. nthe'other Jatid,,. as cogent. In giving the Shs. 70/= to P.C. Saidi the appellants' conduct was putrid, tainted and initiated. Like the learnedtriá11àgistrate.iam satisfied that the charge.aa.inst the appellant as. sufficiently etablish.ed.hy the .evidenO.. • The crnviction is therefore sound and I uphold it. The sentence imposed is the minimum prescribed by t1'c law itself. In the final result this appeal fails and it is dismissed in its entirety. .. .. ... .. . .. . . Delivered in open,Court at Tabora tnis 22nd Feoruory, 1977- ..".'.',