19730410 TZHC Mwanza

III T•H: iIci1. X-UfT or THZNIA S P . LL HIGH CC.T CIUIiIL :FL'LL HO. 482 OF 1972 0IGINAL CRLINAL CESSL I0 0, 354 OF 1972 QF DIT'ICT - COURT OF TBOIh' DILICT IT TBO1A — .BLFoflI . L'S:.,., I])]THT IGISTL:TL. H LZxdSiJO yhj. . , , . . , .'. • aa . aa a p • • a p . a . o , a ••a ' FPLL,1:T S . (. ORICIITLL ous:D) • S ' . VLFFJUS - • . r-vrp 'D''TJTTT Tr. .:: .. tDCP'T'i.Trfl •J.J,.LL L .Lts,JI.J (oRIcIIrL ? 010tJr1J) Stceiin by ub1ic c're.n. /z 265 end 270 of- :hc Penal Ccdc / . 16 of the Laws. JUDtT7;IiT. - 5- 1—KIiTDYJ.: Izareno iyala ;yuj chercdtyith and convicted of theft by public eerva:nt cofltr'y to sections 270 end 265 of bhc Feel Cede Cap. 16. lIe tcz s 'i:nc.:: d to imprisonment or seven y:ttra and to cmpensata the .jjfljstr of `,Griculttuc and Cooperatives in the sum of she. 14,722/65. Ji:. apia 1 eã a:ainst sentence only. r.i , . Tuken,o \ 1: 1:arnci counsel, apoarod for the cp-cllont and Hr. Hecic, the learned Senior S'ec Attorncy, pperccl for the rcspondenf. 1EI'pub1ic, The appellant p1caccI ui1ty to the ciie.rco. He was rc as Jccount 'S Lsistnt, by the I'Iinistr3r çf A-ricu1'tuc and, Cooneratives, and ho had been is sc'r -sica for 12 yc.:-.re prccodin, the da'tc of his conviction. He was. stationed 't Tabora with the office of the eeiployc hinistry, It was pert of his duty to make paym. nts and. to collect rcvcnuc in the course of his employment. Howevcr, fo11owin

d.cccntra- lization erranCements, the appellant was transferred to Arushe on the 8th Jul-, 1 972. Before hc loft for Arusha his accounts were checked. end it was clisäovrcd thet the e,ppclleit cufIred ë shoratc of ohs. 14,722/65. ' -Jhan the appellant could not account for ehc sl'rôte'c, he was referred to the police. In court, by way of cx::lonation, after sa.,­ ine that he stole. the money he said amount ho took he avc it to onc Hr. Hzec, who worked with Cornworks. As the moncy was ' not his nd hc -took it without authority, the raasonbale in±ercnc:. ts that thc epDcllant convertcd the money to his ct-in usc. Therefore, hia pl'c was uk-equivocal, Before sentence was passed on him, the appellant spokc in - mitig ation, as the prosecution did. The appellant was earninc ohs, 780/— per month. This salary ties not small by standards of this country. He was a first offender. H: pleaded CLil±37 to the charac. The amount involved, was large and it has not been recore-rod,. La an Accounts' assistant, the ap:cllan -t was in the position of trust. It was his duty to look cf ter the money with core • Hnc:, his act of takin such large amount of money, constituted not only theft but also breach of trust. By any stretch of mind,, the offencc was serious, The 1earicc1. trial me.gistratc wee i.•formed t.ot the-ft by public servant was prcvale:ot in Tabora region. He wee, thorforo, right in

taking into account this matter. Deterrent sentences arc ,c'allcd for to curb antisocial and selfish activitjes such as tiis one-, Iecr'helcse', I-u', Tukunoba argued -ca't the serncnccs was so occrc that this court ought to interfere wi -th it. Ho pointed out, rightly, th -t the minimum sentonoc for this kind of oi'fonc was 5 years, CC it is provided for in 'the Hinimum :ntcnces Act, 1972. ' Hz submitted.-:- that there was nothing abnormal to justify the addition of 2 more y-:aro . on top ci the minimum in Al tjJ circumstances of this case. Mr. koala sup' ortcö. the ritance impoee.d aQuing that the practie 3iloula b d1SCOL. ad (I. r-c rcIL.in, to - ic appellants c ,lea LiOf CS ho uiC' Ti bi he , poppy. I C eic1 j4qt,hz.haQ.tQQn the moncy and givC i -s-to kr.; i.izec " out' Of for the prcblems oi air. ••'I'.isec 1 his friend - - mcaaiin kr. 1'.izeC - betrayed him by lailiny to return the noncy in tiTh. ''sI jiIiitd out to thn learned Senior Stato !3 -c -Gorncy, ,.is explanation i'rs'speciiically rccctcd by the icarned tri1.:magiitratc as bin: not ganuinvi and 1. arcc with the e:as i'o "cifid. A& was, a suificiently 'intellident ''person who, knew his responsibility. i-ic cannot therefore, enpect a couxt of law to a ccpt his alleation ' - S er ob'blc one • The amount 'was too larc, and there was a cicar risk that such a large amount of rnonc cs'no 'y , i. WWOOK per on e w c in p

obi uS It woula utn. -sona 1 lc to cccc'n th-" b c pl-ia O.L n if the appellant had actcd as ha did, it is a practice which should b diecoum:c;cl. Friends should An helped in ways other than that 01 1 hc:'iT, ',Iy;5i'C'C 'that the Ontenca is severe, but I co not aerc7 UiI, t it is SO OCvCi,. iC t io cQurt OuGht to interfere with it having' regard to pre -valcncc of such offenc':;s in Tabora rgion. , I ecccrdinly dismiss this appeal against scntcnoo. Dclivcrcd in Court, at tiwnz,' on tha 10th day of pril, 1973. •' (z. N. JIL—KII'nJY)' JUDCiF. w2cfi.