19701016 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Summary rejection (s. 317) ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA L l~ AT DAR ES SALAAM APPELLATE JURISDICTION . CitooNAL APPEAL No..... i:-.~~l.............OF 19..7.0 0 ngrna . . IC. . ICase No........7.lJQ nmma . . ........................... of 19..f9 ?. .. of the District Court of...... ::•'. b~.J!tl. .......................District at ........ lf.Q!i! Y.~.. ...................... .. . ············· bcfore .. L.,J. •. J~ain~ ........................ &q., Resident Magistrate~ Magistrate . ....... J.OH1T .. LUG.liu.t:J:W........................................................................ l . ... .. . .. .· · · · · · · · · · · . . . · · · · · · · · · · "· ·" . . . . . . . . . -j (~:e!:sed) versus THE REPUBLIC.................................................................................... ........ Respondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: 1st oounti .rlurglary c/s ~4(1) of the Penal Code. \iap. lo Vol. 1 of the Laws. 2nd count: Stealing 0/1 265 oft he ~nal '-'ode. vap. 16 Vol 1 of the .Laws. JUDGMENT~ 1L1KJir•b, J. - John Lugano 1s appeal1q against "°nviotions of burglary 8.Dd stealing and a 1uo1tant1ve illprisonaent of thre~ 1ears coupled with the usul twenty tour strokes. He was also ordered to pa7 ~.5,697/- the value or the property alltgdd to have been atol•a and not recovered. The evidenuo &¥&inst him was Ylear aan the oonaequent convict1ona were quit\t merited. when P.w.7 Henry Pirie returned to his house rr011 .Deya uucat liouse at auout 8 a.L on the 4th .May, 1989, he found the back door he bad locked on leaving th• houa• a"t about 7 p.m. wide open and his 9roporty, worth aoout ~,au07-, a1sa1Di• G P Dsm 10224/12-65/60m/4up ••••••• 2 Among them were a green sweater '¼d'\ . . .w. A bar maid, P 2 Sada Hamisi toltttli~ pair ot soots how one evening in 1969 the appella'l\. \ t,~ial court • person ~rune to the bar and ordered s\. ~a another beer. When they had ~unk the beer th~ttles of gave a .sv,ea ter to P. W. 2 and as.ked her n~e11l!U1t They would pay. for the drinks. 1rhe two·~ ,worry: disappeared and the appe~~ant did not com~r~ then the sweater. 1rhe bar ma1a was made to pay~k\tbr for the beer, so she .kept the s1Jeater in th~l/.... the appellant woul.d go back to retrieve the a~ tba t and so pay her back the money. Later on the ~r seized the sweater which was the same as the o\.; P.W. 7 id.entified as among the things stolen fro. house. The appellant was identified by P.W.2 at. parade after the poliSi~ .h!d found him wearing a p of socks which P.W. 7 ~dentified as his. The appellant denied having been found with the socks . but said tha.t the sweater was his and he gave it to P.Vr.2 who is his girlfriend. He produced a rece.ipt which he said he was given by the duka walWi from whom he bought the sweater. The t ,vo partners of Vi tha.ldas Ramji & Sons testified for the defence. The1 said the sweater~they sell in their shop are ready-made and :importjed, quite different .from the exhibit, which they never sold to theaappella.nt. In any case the receipt., written in Gujarati; is for a shirt and a bag, not for a sweater. On this evidence the learned resident magistrate convicted and I cannot disagree with him. The appellant has a. distressing criminal record so the punishment he got, is, if anything. on the lenient side. After perusing the record I am satisfied that this appeal has been lodged without any sufficient ground of complaint and order that it be summarily rejected. Da.r es Salaam. 16th October, 1970. (L.M. 1'AAYJ\M&) JUDGE.