na TZHC Mwanza2
The appellant's attempt to flee and inconsistent explanations about the origin of the shoes justified the magistrate's decision to call upon him to account for possession, supporting the conviction under section 312.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- na TZHC Mwanza2
- Parties
- Appellant: POMO BIDILI; Respondent: THE REPUBLIC
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- conviction upheld
- Legal Topics
- Conveying Property Suspected to Be Stolen, Reasonable Suspicion, Detention Powers
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
POMO BIDILI
Appellant
THE REPUBLIC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was lawfully detained under section 24 of the Penal Code
- 2 Whether there was reasonable suspicion that the shoes were stolen
- 3 Whether the conviction under section 312 of the Penal Code was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's attempt to flee and inconsistent explanations about the origin of the shoes justified the magistrate's decision to call upon him to account for possession, supporting the conviction under section 312.
Court Disposition
conviction upheld
Orders
- sentence of 12 months imprisonment confirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
III THE HIGF C('VRT 07 TATZATIP AT WMZJ. Lppellate Jurisdiction. • -' Oa19? ORINAL PPEJL NO. 629 OF 1970. No.76 of 1970 of the District Court of zga Before F.M K Twamwaja Esa , District Magi strn -. POMO BiDILI. • .. . .. . . APPEllANT(Original iccused.) versus • THE REPUBLIC. • • . .RESPONDENT(Original Prosecutcr CHARGE: Conveying 1'operty suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. JUDGME1\T, J0NiTHAN, Ag.J. The appellant was convicted of conveying property suspect- ed to have been stolen 9 in contravention of the provisions of section 312 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to 12 months imprison- ment as he had previous convictions. There was evidence by two police officers that, acting, on information that the appellant was selling a new pair of shoes for an unreasonably small sum, they had approached him in a bar where he was drinking having in possession a pair of shoes. There is no indication in their evidence if, in fact, the shoes were new. On their cuestioning him, he had replied that he had bought them from a shop. One of the witnesses further sai th t the appellant had said he was selling then for shs.12/-, but the other witness said he had not stated so. They had become suspi- cious and detained the appellant under powers conferred on them by sect:lon 24 of the Penal Code. As they were taking him. to the Police Station he had attempted to flee but they had soon caught up with him. That was at night so he culd not show the;1 the shop. On the next morning he had said he had bought them at a pombe shop from a erson he did not know. In court he mac1 e an unsworn statement to the effect that he had bought the shoes. It would sppear that he had been properly detained. It is arguable, however, if the circumstances, as given to the court, which led to the detention of the appellant, raised a reasonable suspicion that the shoes might have been stolen. There was no indidation they were new while the appellant as found V. leisurely circumstances in which there could have been that they had been stolen. However, his subseauent attempt to flee and the fact of mentioning two different places where he bed. bought the shoes - these, I think, entitled the learned magi- trate to call upon him to account as to how he had cone hy•th shoes. He then said in defence what he had once told the police _ -•--:.--..--