19710621 TZHC Arusha3

c. -_SL Ii THE 'L co OFMZ1XA AT AA .APPLLATE JUIISDICflON HIGH CDURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 of 1971 0ri1ria1 Cz1mia1 Use No. 250 of 1970 OF THE DI$ThXCT (OCJBT OF ARU$t1A DI3.tRICT AT ABU$HA iefore H.A. Msui .... 184., ........ /Reident t1agistrate, Petera/oIushi ......,...,,......., Appe1iant (Oriinal Accised) ereuc aREPUitdO ...•,..,,•..,•.,•,•,...• Reepo dent (Oriina1 Prosecutor)

JJ L T Brambl Jude The appellant was oonvcted on the following •tharei- Stealing from motor vehicle c/s 269 (c) of the Penal Code. Porgory c/s 333 of the Penal Code. Uttering a false docucient /s 242 of the Penal Code* He was soniterced to three years imprisonment on the first count nd one year on each of the other two, the sentences runit concurrentl 1y. These are appeals againat conviction and sentence in each case. With regard to the f1rt count the facts proved were that the appellant's car AF 9598 a ford Zephyr had a Peugeot windreen on it and road 1icene No. g 316, The road licence properly belonged to a Peugeot No. AR3 722. The owner of AB 722 had hs windscreen and licence stolen on the 24th november,' 1969 and the appellant was questioned on the 23rd January, 1970,' The windscreen in his car did not belong to the cocplainant. The particulars of the charge alleged that the appellant bad stolen the windscreen and the road licence but the evidence supported only 11rceny of the road, licence and that was b8eed only on receni poesaiori. The appoflant save evidanee that he had left his car in a garage for rçpairs; it was there for two weeks and the owner of the Garage uced it and was involved in an accident; he bad told him tbat there was no licence but when be returned for the car the garage owner told bii that because of the accident be had switched the 1ience from a

ootnu peugeot pick-up which had been writ tan off. The garage owner, F.W. 2 denied that he lad given the appellant the road licence. The learned trial Magistrate believed P .IY. 2 for the reason, be said, that PW 2 never had the re4strttion card of the appellant's car and the card had the licence number X 3616 written on it. He niledirected hImself on this point sthce I have carefully examined the relevant registration card and can find nowhere the licence number X 3616 endorsed on it. \ The ezplanation of the appellant mit reasonably be true and \ this sifficient to answer a charge of stealing based on recent \ posseesion. While there was an admission of receiving there was nothing to suggest that the appellant knew or should have 'çuspeeted that th* licence was illegally obtained. Although e coplainsnt said that the windccreon was not his the trial. \&strate convicted him of stealing the windscreen and the \anoo. The conviction on this count is not supported by the 7 1 it was alleged 1z the 0000nd count that the apeliazit forged the road licence by changinj the rei.etrea nurnber of the vehicle to which it related from Ak1 722 to AU 9598. The evidence upon which be apeilant wao coflvicted was a chne in the vumbers rhich was not e.fected by the licenaing Authority. There wae no proof that the ckane webs in the appellant'e handwriting and this was neaeaary to bring home the

chre. Of oGurse there was otronr suspicion but this was not enough. The judgement reads JZL any case asowing that the ccuoeda conduct does not an3ount to forgery tinder section 66 (i) of the raffic Ordtnnee beca:uee under the latter provieion any lterat1on of licence is sufficient, The section quoted makes it an offeflce under the traffic Ordinance to fore,witMn the meaning of section 333 of the ?enal Code. or alter a licence with intent to deceive; it does not provide any alternative way of provinj forgery or disGhare the prosecution from proving that tnef false docent was written by an accused. We core now to the ohare of knowini,y and fraudulent1y uttering a false document to wit rotor vehicle road licence No, K 3616. flecauae of the finding. on the secon8 count the court held that there was evidence to SULPiort the third, There was no 6oubt that the appellant knew that the road l&oence did not originally belon.g to his car and that he used it holding out that at the time it rolated to his czr. The issue would be whether he knew that the docwent was forged. U, a he testified, be believed Ally Issc (?W 2) as to bow and why the lioenc was put on the CAR, 9598, that would not be proof irnt he knew that the docuant ws false. As pointed out above the appellants story oculd reasonably be true even in the face of Al1 0 c evienoe and he is etit1ed to the benefit of the doubt. For these reasons 1 allow the appeals on the three counts, uaeh the convictione axd sentences and order that the appelint ft be isdiately released unless otherwise lawfully detained, Delivered in court in !rusb. the 21st day of Jane, 1971. Arusha. C.H. Bra.ble JUD /KCtmati,