19721201 TZHC Dodoma

IN THI HIG-H COURT OF 11A.JZANIA AT DODOMA. APPJLLATE JURIa'J)IC1ION HIGH OTLT (JRIMII'AL APPIJAL NO.175 OF 1972 OiLIGINAL 'Ji.IiJ.;:AL CASI NO. 146 OF 1972 144 OF TH DITiCT CQuT OT MEOZI DITICT AT r30Z1 Before P. N. MOJHA Esq. ... ... District Maiscrate iTJOBiL}G' iBUGA ... ... Appellant it ri tO - ( Oiginal Accused) Versus ' THE RbPJBLIC ... ... .. ' espondent (Original Prosecutor) 0hag let count: Contravenin the direction of the onalAgriculturIProduct Board made under section 7 of the National Agricultura' Products • Board, Act No. 56/62 as ammendecl by flct No. 39/64, General Notice No. 1821 and Government iotice No. 390/63 sectiori4 ind i8. 4nd Contravening the direction of the National li, riculturI?roducts Board, made under section 2 of the Government Notice No.241/69 and Act No. 39/64 section 4. JUDG]ENT !IICINA G.J. When this appeal came up for hearing the learned state attorney brought it to the notice of the court that this and the other p:?oal, No. originate from the same court, that is Mbozi District Court he learned state at -barney wont on to infona the court that the charges were ident.cal in both appeals and that that the appellants were raising the same grounds in seeking to avoid the forfeiture orders made in respect of the bags of finger :millet with which they were caught and for which they were charged. The court noted those moints and accepted the submiesion by the learned state attorney. The two apueals were consolidated and for that reason they are being treated as one. The appellant lilson Sungu was, together ith two others, stopped at Vwawa and found with 74 bags of finger millet on board a lorry. £he chac aginet them alleged that they they had acquired the mills for the purpose of trade by ay of barter 1 When their p'Ieas were recorded, however, the prosecution did not repeat this allegation in furnishing the court with facts. What the prosecution emphasised was the appellant.1 1z failure to produce written permits from the National Agricultural Products Board or its agents authorising them to transport the millet. The allegation that they were carrying the niillet for trade was not repeated. The prosecution further omraitted to show that the produce in question was legally restricted. In mitigation the appellant and his cotapanions said bhey harvested the millet from their sha2i1/as and were takingilt t9 Mbeya to sell it. •....I 2. They were nevertheless convicted and ordered to forfeit all the 74 bags of millet. The appellant MunjobeleZe and two others were stopped at the same place and found to be carrying 81 bags of finger millet in a lorry. The tille was 200 a.u0 Phey failed to produce the required permits arid suffered the sa;ie fate as the appellant Wilson and his companions0 Tb.e learned state attorney (lid not seek to support the conviction becuase he could not find the order restricting finger millet, the order which was cited in the charge against Munjo1elege having expired in 1970. Jven then the order did not specify the type of millet it sought to restrict. It referred to millet g3nerally0 Had this angle been invetigated at the hearing, the appellants would be free men now, heir conviction should have been revewed after they had pleaded that the imllet was their own, harvested from their own shanhas. Subsequent to their conviction, they .btained chits from their ward executive officers confiriing their clairis that they were carrying produce harvested from their own shanbas. This is sufficient evidence to warrait their acquittal because they had not purchased the produce nor were they found selling it to an unauthorised personQ All in all the appellants need not have been convicted at all, what with the luck of evidence that finger millet was a restric ted commodity. Accordingly their convictions in respect of all persons involved in the two cases are quashed and set aside. whey should be rofiraded tl:ie money which they paid as fines0 Their produce should be restored to them iïrie—diat ely. DO DO MA / )I. P. . KTIKIMA 1st December, 1972. i-g.