19700205 TZHC Dar es salaam
The appellant's plea of guilty was properly entered and supported by the record; no grounds exist for appeal against conviction or sentence on such a plea.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19700205 TZHC Dar es salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Fakih S. F. L. F. R. Uni; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 5 February 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Plea of Guilty, Possession of Suspected Stolen Property, Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- 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
Fakih S. F. L. F. R. Uni
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant pleaded guilty at trial
- 2 Whether the conviction and sentence were proper on a plea of guilty
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's plea of guilty was properly entered and supported by the record; no grounds exist for appeal against conviction or sentence on such a plea.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal against sentence summarily rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
7L L- / IN 'PHF HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR FS SALAAM CRIMINAL APPFAL NO. 20 OF 1970 Original Criminal. Case No. 133 of 1969 of the Djatriot Couxt of Newala District at Newala Before S. iangwe Fsq., District Magistrate FAKIHXSFLFr.UNI ................... .....APPFLLMT versus T}FRE'PUBL-IC ... ........ . .......... .... RESPONDENT CHARGE: Having in possession property reasonably suspected, of being stolen, contrary to sect ion 312 of the Penal Code. JDGMNP Suniary Rejection HAMLYN, J. - The appellant was charged with an offence of having in his possession property reasonably suspected of being stolen, contrary to section 312 of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to ten months imprisonment upon a plea of "guilty". He now appeals to this Court against the conviction a1leg±z that he did not plead 11 gu1ty 0 4 'The record shows that a very c1ar plea of "guil-ty" was entered by the appellant at the trial and. that thereafter the prosecutor gave a resume of the facts, to which the appellant agreed. There can be no doubt whatever that the plea of "guilty" as properly entered by the trial court, Nor is there anything' on the record to support the allegation in the Pett1on of Appeal that the accused desired to call a witness. I reject copIetely these fantasies which are now raised by this aocused. S There is no appeal against 'conviction by an accused. ion a plea of guilty. In so far as sentence is concerned, the punishment imposed by the court is a most reasonable one, and certainly does not err in being excessive. in the event, therefore, the appeal against 'sentence is summarily rejeotedo lar es Zalaatn, (o. 'P. ltMLYN) 5th February, 1970. JUDGE.