19701013 TZHC Dar es salaam2

6 Criminal Form No. 33 (Approved by the High Court Judgment or Order on Appeal (s. 320) under Section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Summary rejection (s. 317) IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ( 1 APPELLATE JURISDICHON CRIMINAL APPEAL No...... 6.4. .............. or 19Q.. Original Criminal Case No ..... . 27. .............................. of 19.9 of. the District Court ........................ District at before.....lki....................... Esq,RttdIYt Magistrate/District Magistrate. MALIAIRSA Appellant (Original Accused) versus THE REPUBLIC .................................................................................... ......... Respondent (Original Prosecutor) CHARGE: JUDGMENT/ORDER wucAw, J. This is an appeal against a — sentence of two years imprisonment and 24 strokes, and an order to pay s.265/- compensation. The appellant, a tailor, admitted to have broken into his employer's shop and stolen from it Shs.480/ cash. He got the statutory minimum of - two years and 24 strokes and the money hevsas ordered to pay was the difference between the sum he stole, and the Ss.45/ cash recovered plus the pair of trousers, box and watch he bought with the wney he stole. There is, therefore, nothing he can now appeal fer t ~ 0 P Dsm 10224/12-65/60m/4up . , . . . . . .12 • _s After perusing the record, I am satisfied that this ppeal has been lodged without any sufficient ground of complaint, and order that t4it be summarily rejected. With respect, I agree with the views expressed by the district magistrate in revision. The offence under secon 296(1) is a composite offence consisting of both the breaking and entering, and the commission of the felony., in this case the stealing from the building. The primary curt magistrate should not, therefore, have áontricted the apeIlant of stealing also see JUMA SAIDI vs.. THL REPUBLIC, Bar es Salaam Criminal Appeal 319 of 1964. Bar es ,a1aam. 13th. October, 170 (L.M. }AIcAE) JUDGE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA j AT PAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 1970 Original Crimiia1 Case No. 61 of 1969 Of the District Court of Newala District at Newala Before S. Wangwe ESq., .Citrict Magistrate STANSLATJS RASI-IIDI CIi1LEU •.. ..........* APPELLANT versus THEUEPUJ3LIC .............. ............ RESPONOENT ORDER GEORGES, C.J. - The appellant, then Accused I appeared to answer a number of charges of forgery contrary to section 337 of the Penal Code, fraudulent false accounting contrary to section 317(b) and stealing by servant contrary to sections 265 and 271. Most of the charges were dismissed (some for reasons which would not stand up to close scrutiny) but the appellant was convicted on counts 6 and 8. Count 6 alleged that the appellant being the Secretary of the Mcholi Growers' Corporativn with intent to defraud forged payment voucher 126383 by falsely purporting that öash 265/- was paid to Ally Bakari for roofing the Society's building tat Ng'ombelechi Whereas in fact it was not true. Count 8 alleged that the appellant with the other accused person had stolen the ths 265/-. In coirnt 7 the other accused was charged with being privy to the making of the false entry set out in count 6. Two committee members, both apparently reliable testified that no one by the name of Ally Bakari had done work on the roofing of the Society's building. One of them was the Chaixnan PV 7, Hussein Iculioli. The other, Saidi Idcli, PW 8 1 was quite positive. The appellant's defence was that he had prepard the voucher on the authority of the other accused, then the commIttee member on duty and had paid out the money to him for delivery to Ally i3akari. The irial magistrate did not accept this. As Seer tary the appellant would have known that he had to satisfy himself that the money was correctly spent and he would have known that no one called Ally Bakari had been employed to work on the roof. He was the really literate member of the Society. The other accused could do little more t1an sii his name and recognize the signature when he saw it. The appellant has merely repcaed this defence in his memorandum on appeal. The total term of imprisonment imposed did not exceed the minimum sentence. The compensation order is stated to become effective after the appellant has been released. That is rong. The order for compensation must be made immediately effective and it is consequently amended to make it so. I certify that this appeal has been lodged without any sufficient cause of complaint and accordingly is is dismissed summarily. (sad,) P. T. GEORGES Dar es Salaa3n, Chief Justice 29th October, 1970.