19710825 TZHC Arusha

IN TYli HIen COtJ}T O TANZAflIA AT A1U. flA p,[:pEtjL/tT JURI 3DI CT ION * '\ (uIMINAL Afl'1AL E). 230 OF 1971 (MIGI!*L C111:INAt CASE N). 94 CF 1970 OF THE DISTRICT COUAT OF KILIMANJARO rITacT AT )HI Before J.E.C. Masanche, Esq., Resident Magistrate AFAM NYANB ...,,..........,......,.,..... WLLLANT/ACCUSED versus THE ItY.PW3LIC REP)IPET/PIi0C1CUT)R CUAIGB: Giving falea information to a person employed in the Public Service contrary to section 122 (b) of the Penal Code Vo.1 Cap. 16 of the Lawn. J UM I:; IATgL, g. J. - This is an appeal from the Judgment off the ktesident Magistrate, of the District Court of Mosb. he appel1nt was convicted for the offence of aiviri, false information to a person ernployod by public services contrary to section 122 (b) of the Penal Code, The appellant was fined She. 400/- by the trial magistrate. In his Memorandum of Appoal, the appe lant states that the trial magistrete erred in fact and law and misoontinued th events lea-dinz to this inciont. It appeara that at the tateria1 time the appellant was a tenant of the landlord. Later on, the appellant found his ro rn 1octod and be complained to the police and as a reoult of It the landlord was put In remand for 3 hours by Urban Frimay Court, in Mosbi. Later on he was disenarged and investigations wont on and the appellant was charged before the district cou t in Koshi. The evidence as is in the

record is very much unsatisfactory and it in clear that the learned trial magiatrate got mixed up on the sequences of the events, concerned with this Incident, nnd he indeed misdIrected himself an to the motive on the part of the appellant. The learned State Attorney submitted that on the evidence as It stands in the record be finds It diffi- cult to support the conviction. I on -t&rely agre with the learned 3tato Attorney and I agree u4Wh the evidence on record is contradictory and inconUstent as the learned trial magistrato mistook the events. It is very unsafe to allow the conviction stand on the evidence on record. I accordingly allow the appeal. irurthermoro, I order the fine of aba, 400/- paid by the appellant be refunded to Aruaba - 25/8/71 W.B. PATi1) AG. J U 1) OE 3cm in TH turn ciu r 1vrzAriA AT AAU flA - AhPLLAJP JW1DICTIUN 'kII!At AiPtAL Lfl. 230 OF 1971 GIIGIflAL Ct1I?AL CASE N . 94 OF 1970 3? Tff P]TRiCT COUJT )? KIL1?MJAfl) IrT.I'P AT 'HI Before .LC. Masanohe, seq., 1?eeident Magistrate A"AM NY!E . . . . . . . . a . • . . • • * , • A'tLLT/ACCUED VerDu f3 Tli? kPtJL1C • , , , . • • ., ... p:'1T/PhDEcL2 IR 0 . . 0 . (Ut Givtri tales information to a jsrson emp1cied in the rublic 5srvi,e contrary to ection 122 (b) of the Pens). Cods Yo.i Cap. 16 of te Lawa. J LLJ C M !. 1' IATL, *j J. -. This is an eppesi from the Judgment ot the Keslderit Magistrate, of the

District Court of Monhi, he appellant was convicted for the uf fence of givir falee information to a person emploicd by public services contrary to section 122 (b) of the Penal Code. The appellant was fined She. 400/— by the trial aaiatrats. In his N,morandum of Appeal, the appe lant states that the ti-ia) sgistr*ts erred In fact and law and rjisoonttnued thc evente 1esdin to t..in inci:ont. It appears that at the tiaterlal time the appellant wn a tenant of the 1*ndlord. Later on, the appellant found his ri m leeked and he ccyla&ned to the police and as a result of it the landlord was put In remand for 3 hours by Urban Primay Court, in Mosbi. Later on he was diactisred and investigations went on and the appellant was chergad before the district cou t in Moshi. The evidence an in In the record is very much unsatinfactory and it is clear that the learned trial saistrate lot mixed up on the sequences of the events concerned with this incident, nd he indeed misdirected himself as to the motive on the part of the nppellunt. The learned State Attorney submitted that on the evi6erce an it atpde in the record be finds it diffi- cult to support the onvictIon. I en -t*rely agre WIth the learned State Attorney and I agree wh the oviderce un record is contradictory and IncoMietent as the learned ti-mi magiatrats mistook the events. It is very unsafe to allow the conviction stand on the evidence on record. I accordingly allow the apeel. Furthermore, X order the ftne of Sha. 400/— paid by the appellant be refunded to hic. Aruahs - 25/8/71 (,Y.3. LATL) AC, J U . j em FM