19720404 TZHC Dodoma

LGE[ J ) .T OF AT DODOI iA., OT:brL juIi:DICT.:C. Criminal essioiie Ca'e No. 58 of 1971 The Pepublic versus Stephen s/o lfani........... Accused Char e;4Iavin; in :osocssi:;ia forod currency notes c/s 341 (s) (a) of the Penal Code. r TT m r m ) U .1) Lr 1 i . A\TiJ J. wiGh four oifencos of iorery The accused Stephen s/o al:I:ani stands char';ed and beai in possession of forced curronc3r notes c/es 338 and 348 the Penal Code. The flopublicts case is that the accused on or about the 23/3/71 within the District and Re,;ion of Dodona with intent to de:raud or deceive forced a currency note )rrport1nC to be a 100 Shillin';e currency note iscued by the 3ank of Tanzania. TI-ia second count is that on the sane day and place he also ith the same intent forced another currency note puroorti1i to be .00 shillinbe note iseucd by tlio Bank of ±nya. The renaininr two COUntS are that he ws.s foird in posse:sion of the above/-orbc currency notes knowing then to be ±'orcd. The uscd denied those alleaati.'ns. Police Consitable William (:j1 ) related to the court that on 230 /71 he was c1ctai.l3d to look for uagabonds in the town. He in the course of his duties, visited PIwenge Bar, where he net two people standing outside the bar. One of these 'two people had a parcel and the other man ws not carrying anything. ..'ccording to his evidence he together iith one, P.C. Laurent (P1,13) jtorroga'tod

the two peoile as to crhore they were coning ±':eon and that the man without a parcel replied that he was escotlng his i:n.end, the iam ca::rtng a parcel 9 co Gho railway staGion who was going to iibeya. This witness further told the court that the man who said he was escbing the other is the accused in COurt. P.C. 1illiam ao testified that the aocusod produced a motor travelling rant in support of his story and handed it to the witness. W witness unfolded the travelling warrant and, accordiiig to his evidence, found. two .ioo/ currency notes. He and P.C. Laurent exa;ained the two currency notes and found them to he forge -. currency notes. i4e told the court tha one of the notes purported to be a 1 OO/= note issued by the Bank of Tanzania and the other purported to have been issued by thc ank of Kenya. The two note were produced as eahibit and were marked as exihihit 1 and 2 respectively. Accordiiigto P.C. William he asked the accused as to how he had come to he in possession of the forged currency notes and that the accused did not reply. T o come back to the motor travelling warrant the witness told the court that he asked the accused as to who was the owner of it and the accused is reported to have replied that the warrant belonged to hLm. P.C. Laurent(P'I3) gave similar evidence as that of P.C. iilliam in so far as the finding of the forged currency motes with the accused

is concerned. This witness however related to the court that when the accused was interrogated about the notes he replied that he got the forged currency notes from 1 senga prison. The accused in a sworn statement told the court that he was released from Isanga Prison on 23/1 /71 where he was serving' prison sentence. According to his defence he was issued with a motor travelling warrant to Njombe, his home and paid di.3/ subsistence allowance. /2 - 2. — bh three o bhcr exconuicts went to the a ,ilwaw sbe L;ion whero they acre informed that -bheir bu was scheduled to leave sometime in the a' uc noon. / noj Iiad the Thole 001 i 1 WJ uh V.1cm thej Ceo Ld to O to a poaJ.)o-shOp in the town. hey dra:i1: poa.be fo:c some time but loter 01ec I IC 1,0 r Slu 1we C C0 rCi i O 11:5 L'O 1 C ni ro hle they were at the her he wont to the oslot where he found two shilliny 1 0o/= currency notes or the floor0 He picked 1'O5 and folded them in his travc.11iny warrant. He then loft the toilet and came out whore he found one of his companions by the name Of i1son 7jetii: intorroyatod by the poico Tue accused further told the court tIiat the policeman saw him holdiny' his travelliny warrant and asked him to hand it to him uhi.ch he did. The poilcenan unfolde. the warrant and fotued the tao :bored currency notes. Accordin.y im his defence ho, when interrO,a bed .bout the notes , told the poljceman

that ho bicked the notes in the toilet. After sm.uiey up to the assc::cors both assessors were of the unanimOus opinion that the accusai committed the alloyed ofiences and found him yuilty as charyod. There is no dispute in this case that the accused was found in possession of foryad currency notes. The only question to be decided by this court in so far as the posae.eion of -Grie nocs y the accused is concornea iS whedhor the accused 's possession of uho notes was umlariul. This cours has also to decide whether the accused is yuilty of forysry es alloyed by the rosecution in counts one and two. I will first deal with the alloyed off encos of foryery. With s to the learned state attorney I fail to see why charye of foryary i-rare preferred ayainst the a-:cued. Apart from the undisputed 'act that the accused was found with two 1 00 shillin for; ed currency _otos there is no evidence whatsoever that it is the accused who bayed the two currency notcs Boiny in posseesi.on of for:od currency notes does not by itself eaiourt to foryiny the notes. If it wore so many an innocent people would have fouied themselves in trouble. There is not even a shred of evidence ayainet -the accused in so far as the char,yos of forory aise concerned. I accordiiiyly have no alt rnative but to find the accused not fUiL - btr and I accordinyly acquit him. As for the two counts of beiiy iii possession of

foryod currency notes there is, as I have already menioed, tn no dispute that the accused was found in possession of the two f'oryed currency notes(nihshits 1 and 2) The only ques -b:uon is whether the possession was unl_arstul. person commits -dee 011011cc oc ceiny in possession oi fore.: currency )tcs if no is ma sossessioc of the for ad notes T11,hout i' ILl authority or excus . The proof that he had lawful tuthority or excuse is on the person found in posession of the fored notes. In the present case the aecusJ has not proved to the court that he had lawful authority to possess the foryocl curroncy notes as required by section 343 of the Penal Coda but he aryued that he found the notes on the floor in the bar's toilet. P.C. William (Fi ) related to the court that the acces'ed did not reply when he iras asked the oriyin of the notes found with him. P.C. Laurent on the other hand told the court that the accused told him that he yot the notes from Isanya Prison whore he wasa prisoner. The inconsistence of the two prosecution witnesses reyarf.iny what the accused said about the oriyiia of the notes makes it difficult for the - - -. •i- a h:Uiny the truth. As for the accused's defence that he found -thefor-yed currency n otes on the floor in the harts toilet there is consistece n in his story. Accordiny to his defence he told the tao nolice officsrs on the day he was arrested

that he found the foryed motes in the -toilet, -e irsisteL uh u he found the noue ci the toilet a loJuh is 1,er when he yavo his states-icn -t (fbthibit 3) to the Iiayisbrate. Before this court he has maintained his -story that he picked -the Loryod currency notes in the bar s 1,QJ lo 1, His ehavcous u 1 e coninonuc 1 e uhe police on 23/1 /71 was such that it cannot be said tha -b it reflected yuil -b on his part. He handed his bravelliny warrant to P.C. William while he knew that it contained the two 0 6 0 0 • • / _). 0 ........ 3 - forec1 currency notes withcut the li:htest obj ection. .lthou'h the OflU$óf proof is under section 348 of the renal Code on the accused to show that he had 1aTful authàrity or excuse to be in possession of the forced currency notes the anus is not a heavy one. accused char'ed under section 348 of the renal Code is entitled. to an acquital if he leads evidence leavin: reasonable doubt in the rLnd of the court that he could not have coraiiiitted the alleged offence, Tahin into account the contradiction in the prosecution case can not say with any anount of certainty that the accusedts explan.:ion as to how he cane to be in possession of th notes is unreasonab1 His explanation that he folma the notes in the toilet nay, on the circunstances of this casrY well be true. For the above reasons I be to dcffer with the una:ainc'. opinion of the assessors. I

also find the accused not iuilty of being in unlawful possession of for ; ed currency notes. The accused is acquitted. I IT. 510 iI:J DODOIiA 4th April, 1972 Desouza for the I.epuhlic Accused - Present Undefended. 0 RD1 R:- The two forced currency notes to be destroyed0 4 I.s. rinzavas y 3 he *ccet e is i tirct bffender1 May it p1eae your ioidebtp,, whatevax' I won11 have øid in nritieation has already been tunt1ond by Your l;oehip in eucing Thi.c oenoe to 11analaughter. I would4 howeverf nntioi that the aocuced has been in ratsaftd for 18 months 1 mok the coux't to take into account this periodL when aet Oing the eused. Lcu I have nO iJ2 tO adds _ Thin 10 o very bt cast of XancltjuLhiter. The &ocee i very 1ucçy that he has not been fouh4 gt41ty of udr od LthaI weapon in inflictine the ftil ound and inflicted the woun1 Jritb cc rncb force that the knife went right to eCecced &ing all these faete into aocowt 7 I fte1 that this is on f thoee 04008 of kanslauetter which call for severe eentez2ce, You ere Sentenced to TWELVE (12) y ears ipiaornent ght of Appeal to eçp1ained. smunjls 3GD. fl. . 1ZitVAS '7 WIIh! 1