19810909 TZHC Mbeya2

4- ) L8,171 't t1-ft_ c ftY7. L IN THE EJH COURT OF TiNZJ1NIA "

AT MBEYA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRILIIN.lUi APPEAl NO 126 OF 1918 (ORmINAl CRIMINAL CE NO. 116 OP 1978 OP THE DISTRICT COURT OF !EYiI DISTRICT AT MBEYA) BEFORE: E.P. MTUI Esq., RESIDENT MiISTRATE JOHJSON MBUNDA 1 APPELLl1T (Original Accused) versus THE REIUBLIC : : : RESPONDENT (Original Prosecutor) CH\RGE: Five counts of Stealing by agent c/s 273 (b) and 265 Cap. J.:6 of the Penal Code Vol.1 of the laws. JUDC-Iv1EIT J,A, 1IROSO, J. The appellant pleado. gu1j to five mounts of stealing by agent and was consequently co'fvictd and sentenced to zwo years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He is now appealing against the severity of cnteneo., The facts'hichweregiveni.bytheprosccutorin the lower court and which the appellant accepted as correct showed that the appellant was a tailor and that he had received from five school boys various sums of money so that tic could make school uniforms for them. On the date'reed for co11ectionof the clothes the appellant was no where to beseen. ..Almast two months later the appellant presented himself at the school of the five boys and todthpni tbat,hhadfa±lod to ' 0 Q,r the making of the uniforms and that h had already spent their money. The boys reported to the police and the court prosecution followed. Before sentencing the ap 11ant'the lower court asked him if he had any thing to sa y in mitigation but he declined to say

any- says that in fact he had spent the boys' money because his owu money run out while'he was in iringa where he Itd ''' -, •','' gone to look for cloth mtterial' for the boys uniforms. 0/2 a - 2 Cholerci. 1i broken out in Iringa resulting in his being stranded there. As it was those circumstances which forced him to spend the boys' money he argues -that he ought to have boon sentenced more leniently. If what the appellant now says wore the reasons which led to his committing the offencos one wonders why he did not narrate them to the lower court, his failure to say anything at all in mitigation of sentence despite court's invitation gives mc the impression that what appellant is now saying is mere after thought and could not be true. Considering that the victims of the theft were school boys whose precious scarce money was spent and they had to make do without either their money or uniforms I cannot sty that the magistrate was unduly severe to the apelLLnt in imposing the sentences that he did. I can find no merit in this appeal which I dismiss. Incidentally, by now the appellant must have completed his prison sentence so that even if I were minded to reduce it that would be a futile exercise as the appellant would not benefit from such reduction. The sentence of two years imprisonment for the offences cIrged" qüires eonfirma -tion bythiS our.t, I the'efbre eóffiz it, . - _..;_.. - - . •'-- .:- -•-• - - - SIC .1 •--, J,.'I. MROSO -

JUDGE .. 9/19/ &l, - 1 - - - -. ---- ---- S -- fl- i--