na TZHC Mwanza3

t- IN THZ HIGH COURT OF TNZiNI! LT 1iW44NZi. ppo11ate Jurisdiction. CRIMINLL IPPFPLS NCS,67 & 643 OF 1 97 0 - Original Criminal Case No. 230 of 1969 of the Ditrict Court of kaswa District at haswa Baforo L.G.Rugimbana, Es, District hagitrato. 3LL6E ) • • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . LPPILLJNTS. CHJRLJS NDLLLHbJ. ) (Original 1 2 JCCUSCri vs. THE LPUBLIC. . * . . . . . . i q RLSPONDENT(Orig. Prosecutor) CHJ'RGi: Steaoing by public servant c/es 270 and 265 of the Penal Coda. JUDGMENT. EL—KINDY, Lg.J. - Thoappellants, Huma s/c Saluin (the first appellant) and Charles s/o Ndalahwa (the second appellant), were jointly charged with and convicted for stealing by public servant c/es 270 and 265 of the Penal Code 1 Cep.16. The first appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment carrying with it the statutory 24 strokes ol corporal punishment. He was also ordered to refund a total sum of ss10,121/25 to Naswa District Council. Thosecond appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment corryin& with it the statutory 24 strokes of corporal punishment. He was also ordered to refund shs.610/- to Naswa District Council. Each is appealing against his conviction, sentence and order, and their appeals are consolidated. To the extent I could follow the rccord,the first appcllant was employed by the District Council at iloewa as a RGVCflUG Collector. The second appellant was employed by the

same Council, as a messenger and working, same time, with the first appellant. It appears that there was a fixed date for the first apvollant to remit his collections to the Council. On the date fixed, the first appellant failed to remit his collc.cticns. As a result, the do:.;uty treasurer (P..2) went to make investigations. He found some three receipt books, alleged to have boon issued to the first appellant, missing. One of the bccks was alleged to have been given to one iarko i.ajiko, who did not give evidence in ccurt nor was he invostiated. The other book was allcod to have been given to the second appellant by the first appellant. The treasurer, who chocked the first appellant's accounts, alleged that he found a shortage in the collections, but the record is not clear as to how much this shortage was, and in respect of what items. Beyond this, I have been unable to follow the record, and the learned State Lttorney, who appeared, could not lollow it either. The judgment itself is least helpful. The learned State attorney doued very much if there was su!ficient evidence on which conviction could b.. bsod against any * or both appellants. In my view, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the record, it is difficult to say whether there was or there was S