19710430 TZHC Mwanza

c" dV IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ANZA. ppe11ate Jurisdiction. CRIMINAL APPEPL NO. 622A OF 1970 OriginalCriininal Case No.209 of 1970 of the District Court of usoma District at Misoma Before.J.L. Ruhumbika Eso0 9 Resident Magistrate. GIRISHONI ABAYO. . . . .. . APPEUMIT('ig. Accused.) versus THE REPUBLIC. RESPOI\1DENT (Or ig . Prose cut or) J1JDG1\ENT. T'ZAVAS, Ag.J. 0 In this case the appellant Girishon Abayo was charged with and convicted of (i) moving restricted agricultural products without written permission of the Area Comnissioner contrary to sections 5 and 8 of the Agricultural Products ( 0 ontrol of Movernen) Act No.3 of 1966, (ii) Forgery c/s 337 of the Penal Code and (iii) uttering a false document c/s 342 of the Penal Code. On conviction he Was sentenced to fiis of shs.500/-, shs.1000/- and shs.1000/- respectively. He has now stpealed to this Court against the convictions and the sentences imposed. Act No.3 of 1966 empowers the Minister for Commerce to restrict movements of food-stuffs fran one district to another0 Such restriction order was made in respect of North Mara District by virtue of Government Notice No.59/70 of 14/3/70 and the food- stuffs whose inovements were restricted included cassava. On 16/4/70 the appellant was found in the process of moving 100 bags of cassava from North Mara district to usoma District. On being interrogated as to whether he had permission to do so he produced permit No.E/2/1/111 saying that the permit was issued to him by the North Tara Area Commissionex. The police were suspcious as to the authenticity of the permit and started to investigate its origin. The office of the Area Commissioner was contacted and a duplicate copy of perm.it No.E/2/1J111 was found. This duplicate copy (Exh B) however showed to move, cassava from North Mara District to Musoma between 10-1-70 to 25/1/70. The original (Eh A) produced by the appellant purported to show that he was authorised to .ove cassava from the district between 10-4-70 and 25-4-70. That the original permit found with the accused is the original of the duplicate found in Area Commissioner's office is fully brought out by the testimony of Okoth (P077•3)9 the clerk 1 -2- who issued the permit to the accused0 Okoth told the court that he issued the permit to the accused authorising him to transport 220 bags of cassava from North Mara D itrict to Musoma between 10-1-70 and 25-1-70 as shown on the duplicate permit. He denied ever changing the dates on the original found with the accused tor ead 10-4-70 to 25-470. Iccused's defence was that the duplicate permit (Eh B) produced in court was not the duplicate permit of the origThal he uttered to the police. The learned district magistrate dismissed this defence and, in my view rightly so0 Both pemits bear the same folio numbers and, apart from the dates, which are different, they are identical in every respect. In the light of the evidence of Okoth (P.'T0), the trial magistrate could have no alternative but to come to the conclusion that the dates on the original permit produced by the accused were forged0 The forged permit havng been uttered by the accused the only reasonable inference is that it was the accused who forged it. There was ample evidence before the learned magistrate entitling him to find the accised guilty of all the three offences as charged. Insofar as the sentences are concerned I would agree with the Republic that the sentences, thigh severe, are not so manifestly excessive as to warrant interference by this Court6 This is all the more so bearing in mind the fact that accused has one previous conviction for dishonesty. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in its entirety. 11 0th April, 1971. Delivered in Court at Mwanza thj..s ACTING JIJDGE. Mr. D'Souza for the Republic. 1 ppcait absent and unrepresented. 11