19730228 TZHC Mwanza2

IN TdE HIGH COUdT CF TANZANIA - ) AT iLrANZA. APPELLATh JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 1972 Original Criminal Case No. 31 of 1972 of the District Court of Kahama District at Kahama - Before: P. N. Mushi hsq., District Magistrate. KULA s/o BAKARI . .............................. APPELLANT versus TR REPUBLIC ............ .. ... RPOiDhNT. CHARGE: Two counts of: Personating a public officer and stealing from the person of another contrary to sections 100 (1) and 269 (a) respectively of the Penal Code-, J U D G B N B N T. KISANGA, J,: The appellant Kulwa Bakari was charged on t-.io counts of personating a public officer and stealing from the person of another contrary to sections 100 (1) and 269 (a) respectively of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty to the stealing count and was convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. After the trial he was also found guilty on the count of personating and was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. He now appeals against the convictions and sentences. The appeal against conviction for stealing is incompetent because the appellant pleaded guilty and the plea was uneçtiooal. On the count of personating a public officer also the conviction was amply justified. The complainant (P.4.1) stated that the appellant approached him and introduced himself as a special constable. He then said that he was investigating the complainant and in the course of doing this he aearched the complainant and took away shs. 148/80. He also purported to open a case file such as the police do in which he wrote the name and other particulars of the complainant. When his house was searched, a number of police files were foun1 including the one bearing the details of the complainant. In his defence the appellant claimed that he was carrying out such investigation work under the instructions of a police constable, one Athuman. The trial magistrate rejected the appellant's story and I am satified that he was entitled to do so. The conviction was therefore justified and I see no reason to interfere. The appeal was admitted to hearing only to consider whether it was proper to order the sentences to run consecutively. The two offences were committed in one transaction and there were no circumstances which could be said to aggravate their commission. In those circumstances I am of the view that there we-re no grounds for ordering the sentences to run consecutively. Gonsequently the order of the lower court is set aside aM in lieu thereof it is ordered that the sentences on both count shall run concurrently. bxcept to this limited extent the appeal is dismissed. i i 28/2/73. (ii. H. KISANGA) JULOb. Appellant absent,. unrepresented. Mr. W. H. Sekule - for the Re-public.