19830813 TZHC Mbeya1

IN TL LJ3H COURT OF TNdi.A ZT IILBILfli iLLJ 7 3j171 IOI1 CRLIN±iL aiiuL Nu. 11 OF 1962 OxtIGli (RI J1 J NO 252 (j 1981 OF T JIsrRJCT Cuu T L 1 U L I)J:uT T T&ij Beorar P. 3. hpcn. zi, Distrit thitrate. R-24 BJLIJC.L L..USLBE . . .iPI3LLLNT TI Ri-FBL1 . . ( CHARGL 1st Count: Crrying on ous1ness without 11 r's c/es 17(a) and • 28 of the hsiieâs Li sing Act 1'10 6 25/72. 2nd Count. Nscaping f rorn lawful custojy c/ 1 .116 of the Penal Code - The.appellant .convicted on his own plea.& two hounts: trading without a lieenceand escaping from lawfui custoy, t was stated • that the appellant was found by P.C. Joseph sefl$ng eit without a 1.icen. P.C. Joseph arrested him. On the way when he wad escorted to Tukuyt4 Police Station, he escapeu frou his escort t' . C 4 Jos pn Tie appellant admitted the charges and facts in no uncertain tèond convicted aceordingly. H. as .tnoed to o lu year inprisonr ru each count to * rin w=SeqM #pIy He appealed aainst conviction and sentence. Aaried by the learned Coun1 for the Republic, the conviction was well founded and cannot be assailede 't the sente: ces were excessive. Be already served four months before he was releneed c:a bath pending appeal. This should be enough. I set aLe the consecutive scnterices of one year each count and sub.titute thereoi an order for absolute discharge each eount, Appeal vei to that exturit At Mbeya F. A, 1( 11"~ Y 6th

August, 1983 .TIDGN. L~-- -.L. ( v istry) CRLLhL ..Jl hC. 8 ' i52 ldI±' J Cii LC 0 159 0 F 1981 0 JISCT 2 0 h 1 )L f IJ UIJ 4 Befora J. lusf1okorn, Jicrict 1aistrtte io s/o II J1G . 0NDthT pt Ti ?wiujulC ,. iCDUT CHRGL tore brei c/s 96 of the ei l Code Ca 1 MTJNYid J The e s ch od it 1 sto oreskn and o tealin On 2 7/O7/l, Yotia CLsjuo (e 2'), trie ronajer o.2 Ia -Uñ Toe. Ptictor? cliover&t that the faAory otoro had toLn 'ilL a wae -t pa j rotor stolen. lie reported to leiico en 27/7/8 Sab-Thpect i (r i), on information received, searched the spe11ant ousa S&eie nrc ee wound in the house and these c-i Identified as:beongiiig to the fiotory. The motor wan not found in the house, The seri party continaed with their search, SC)Llewhcre in bnia planthtLan, atQui 30 * O paces from the appellant's house, the notoi ias found hiciuen. The dflant ns questioned it and simply said samcusni wazee,' irJyii an adr4ssion. In his defence in court, he ecidd to rercain si1en. he wa P.onvicted and sentenced to five years impris riojent. He appea]ed to this coUrt. There was evidence that the motor wa ourd very dose tb the appellant's house. There was evlaonce also to t effect that there were no other h o qses near the aJ a'it'. The cicunst.nces were that nobody else had placed the motor in t i. appellant's pLantatioij ex cept h imself. He was rightly convicted. The sentence of 5 years ws in ordex, the value of stolen property was Shs.30,000/=. The appeal i s disiissed in its entirety. (