19700304 TZHC Mwanza

hIGi CguRT O LeLNIL (in the District Registry.) T MULNZL. Lppellata Jurisdiction. CRLIINLL !PPlLL NO. 18 CF 197 0 - Original Criminal Case No. 445 of 1969 of the District Court of wanza District at Mwanza Before D.LKazimoto, Resident Magistrate. FRUMLiNZI LiSSLWF. • • . . , . . . . . PPELLLNT(0riginal Lccused.) vs. THD RRFUBLIC. . . . . . . . . . . RESFONDBNT(Original Prosccutor. CHLRGE: Stealing by a - .---, :o son employed in the public service c/ss 270 and 265 of the Penal Code. JUDGMhNT. KIMICH±, J. - This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant wa ooavicted of stealing by public servant c/sB 27 0 and 265 of the Penal Coda and sentenced to two years iprisonmcnt and 24 strokes of corporal punishment. Briefly the prosecution case was that the appellant was at the material time employed by the Ministry of Lands and •Surve and housing Development as a Land Lssistant. Fart of his duties was to prepare Offers of Rights of Occupancy and to issue Demand Notes in respect of land rent in arrears. It was however not part of his duty to receive money in respect of land rant - land rents are payable to the Revenue Officer. It was alleged that he served three demand notes to three persons for payment of shs.4 0/— each being arrears in land rent. These sums were paid to him and he acually t received them but did not issue receipts c(them. In his defence the appellant made an unsworn statement and agreed to have served the demand notes on the complainants but denied to have received the money on the ground that all land holders arc aware of the fact that land rent was payable to the Revenue Officer and not to him. Lftcr examinin the record I am satisfied that the appellant rccciv:t the sum of shs.120/— fom the prosecution witnesses0 The only point to be considered is whether he was convicted of the correct offence. It is undisputed that the appellant was not authorised to receive the land rent. He therefore did not receive the money by virtue of his employment. he also dId not receive the money a s the agent of the complal- nants. His offence Is clearly that of receivin the money by false pretences c/s 302 of the lenal Coda. This is a lesser offence than the one of whi.ch he has been convicted. It also does not carry the minimum sentence. For the above r asons the appellant's conviction of an offence under sections 270 and 265 of the Penal Code is quashed and the sentence is sat aside and is instead convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 12 (twelve) months imprisonment without corporal punishment. Delivered in Court the 4th day of March, 1 97 0 - C (N. F.