na TZHC Arusha 10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TJ\NZAIIA AT ARtJSHA APPELLATE JURISDICTIOI' HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221/72 Original Criminal Case No, 1285/1971 of the District Court of Kilirnanjaro District at Machi before F.C.P. Lyasenga, Esq., R.M. PHILLEMON MAPALA MCHIHIYO ..... . , .........APELLANT Versus THEREPUBLIC ........................... RESPONDENT CHARGE: Corruption Transaction c/s 3(1) of the Prevention * of Corruption Act No. 16/71. ' S JUDGI'/LENT Patel, Ag. J. Appellant appeals against the Judgment of the learned Resident Magistrate of Kilimanjaro District Court in which he was convicted of 'Corrupt transaction' c/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act No. 16/71 and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. In his lengthy memorandum of appeal he has stated a number of grounds of appeal, and prays that the conviction •was wrong and he • be set free forthwith. It was a1leged before the trial court that the appellant who was then a Sènior. Court Clerk at Resident Mazistrate's Court at Mohicorruptly obtained shs 60/= from one Samwelli Ndesarnburo aè an inducement so that the appellant may destroy the court file of case No. 201/71, speed up the proceedings in case file number 5 of 1971 and supply copy of Judgment in case No. 335 of 1971. There are two sets of grounds of rppea1. One is on point of law and other is on evidence. Point of law concerns application by prosecutor before the

trial court for substituting the charge with detailed pareu1ars after four prosecution witnesses had given evidence. This application was allowed by the trial court. Appellant states that this was bad in ( ' law and should not have.been allowed. GOing through the record it can be seen that the substituted charge merely added particulars for the same offence and nothing more. Moreover the learned trial maJistrate invited the defence counsel if he wanted to recall the prosecution witnesses who had already given evidence and cross—examine. To this the learned defence counsel replied "I might recall". But in fact he never applied to the 0 ourt for recalling any of the said witnesses. The learned trial magistrate has both in his ruling and judgment dealt with all aspects of law in details and held that the substituted charge with additional particulars did not prejudice the defence and he allowed it. I cannot find anything wrong in his reasoning, arguments, or conclusions on this point. I am satisfied that he was co rect in this and his ground of appeal has no merit. As for evidence the appellant has dealt in:'details certnin contradictions in witnesses' testimony. They refer to as to what happened in a room when the alleged bribe of shs 60/= was passed on to him ny Samwelli. He referred to the evidence of Samwelli, three police officers and are Loti, in details and pointed out certain contradictions. Learned state attorney conceded that there are certain slight discrepancies and saidat despite them the prosecution had sufficient evidence to prove facts. He said there was no merit in the appeal and that it should be dismissed.