na TZHC Dodoma 14

IU THE RIG-il €OlP OP T.UIZATIA

AT DODOA IIIC-Fi COURT CRIIINAI AP:PEAL iTO. 195 OF 1972 ORIG-IHAL CUIMIFAL CASE MC. 110 OF 1972 OF SME DISTRICT COURT OF IIflEYA DISTEICT AT IJPEYA Before I. T:l.IuI. M ages Es q ,..,....,...........,...DistritTiagistrate IIOELI S/C WILISON CHARLES (Original Accused) Versus - THE REPUBLIC. . . . . . . . . . . . e Re sponent Charge Stea1in by Rublic se.±'vant cont'ay to sec ti On 270 and 265 of the Penal Code, Cap. 16 Tolure 1 of the laws. JUDGEMJThNT KJIKIIL. AG-, J. The appllant, a rrimary court clerk was convictd for stealing She. I 52/. It was averred in charge that he stole the noney in the course of his enplo3n':Lc-nt. On being contc he was sentenced to three years iimrisonment under the Ilininun Sentences Act. The evidence against hiri was weighty. The books of account he. kept showed that he had collected various sums of noney fron the public and issued receipts to the payers. He accounted for all the noney collected except for the She, 1 52/=. He was at a loss for words when called upon to explain the shortage, .;ccepting responsibility for the shorthge, the appellant mdc it good from his own resources. He was nevertheless charged, tried and con victeö. of theft by public servant. In sentencing hin the learned trial magistrate did not invoke the provisions of s. 6 of the Minimum Sentence Act although the appellant was, to usek-a scoutinr, tern, a tenderfoot. There. was nothing that could be done to help the appellant, for, the rovisions of that section require that besides a clean record the monetary value involved ruot not exceed She. ioo/=. Unfortu- nately for appellant, , what he as proved he have stolen was in ex cess of hs. 1 0O/=.. His appeal cannot suceed from whatever angle it is exemineJ It is therefore dismissed in its entirety. M. II. A. ICJIMIMA