19770813 TZHC Mwanza1

. ~ - .•. r.· .t'LL I...J1 J. .__._,,._:.. ...... •• - l~T i'li''l!1l'JZ}\. :-1.PPELL1,TE JTJHI3DIC'.!:'J:()i,1 HIGH COURT C;UMIN;,L i\PPS,\L NO., 116/77'. (OriJinail :.Cri.rninal C3se Hoo H8 of 1977 of the· Di-strict Court of Bukoba district ::t 3uk:oha - ;_Cje;fore So Bo Mo Chomr'-i-ho:, Ssqo, Resid,:::nt i'-i2qistr3te). ROStfoNi\L E o KI-il.LF II.NI ~ APPELLi,i'-lT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VALLABHDAS U. ·PhTEL ~ versus- THE REPUBLIC aono~o•o ■ ooooooo ■ oooooooooooooooooooo RE.s ~r~u--·,. .JD; •- ·.,·J~-_!'-J~' •.. CHARGE: TEN COUNTS: Failin9 to pay statuto,ry contri}Yuc;_ons to the F~nd during th~ prescribed periods c/s 15(2), 3B(l)(d) of the National Provident Fund Act Noo 36 l :..- of 1964 -:Cap. 564 of. the Lawso . JUDG1 1iENT ~ Ki, TI.TI , J o :·.. The appellants - Roshan Eo Khalfan, and Vallabhadas u. Patel were convicted .on their own .ple;1s of guilty and fined 150/== ar1d 200/=, r,esoectiyely or distre;s 1 on each counta The facts to which they appear to have pleaded to unequi voca1ly., were:, that ti1:~· t;10 br~i,19 partners ,in firm known as Grand .S~rvice Statj:on', and tir:~L,g registered confributing employ~r No. 55069, did fail to pay to the Board' statutory contributions wj_ thin thl:: re.quired ,'p~criods' ie.' from 1st l"iay, ;I.9-76 to February, 1977. Thc" ~otal fund uncontributed was 760/= ~ · · · They are nCJw. appeal inn

2n;,:inc,t cnr~victions, and sentenc-2so W)1nt (!,c:Sily milkes· s1:;nsc~ ir. tlx:i_r memo of c1ppeal; is a.s foll_o,-.,.s :- (1) That they thou~1t, th~y wer2 no longer~ liable to cont,rihutc 1 ilS th,; (JfflDloyc~~s had been rr~d.uc2d to les.s· than four. ·(2) _That, .th~y indivi~ual1y were not ~mpioy~is regis€Jref to contribute to the Board. ( 3) That, indi viclually, they h21.d n•)t clefaul ted in mu.kir:g statutory c_ontributions. (4) That individ4ally, they hnve committed no offence (5) That the fines w~re excessive. To rei teratc': what the Law is, when a conviction flows ·fro.in ·,_, pl~;cl- · of guilty 9 no appeal should he allowed in the case of an accused person, who has un~quivocally pleaded guilty, and, has b00n convicted on such a pl<;ca by a subordinab~ court 9 except where such an np;_,eal, reL:itcs to the extent or legality of th<c", sentence passed, - s,::ction 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cupo 20. In considering this aopeal 1 I shall therefore scan, the record with a view, to seeing whether the= pl2a was in any way equivocal, or wheth(:r, th,:re is anythinq that derogates from such a pleu, and finally consider th:, propriety of thr~ extent of punishmento I shall do this by relating the facts of the casr.:! and the grounrts of appeal togethero The app.:::llant' s ·urge 9 that th .'.y d.i.d not contribute, b,..:c<1:us2 they thought, since th0 number

of ernploy~es 1 h~d fallen to less than four. ·er:.::,,· 1 ·c::-: r_o lc.;y,·;;r li;-,.",)l·:;.;, t:· r, t2cb_,t,_1ry contributi.·..:-·:s. • ./2 Th:i..s does -,:)t ,':l))'J~.:r in th:: miti9::i·!::i_ . 1 ns -·1t a11, whro:re ·u,~. 1st ;:rnuelL,nt ns:;;ic;:r,s bl-oc,d ·Jressure c1s t:·,., m2ir. causeo If howc,ver, th~ ;:;::--.11ic, w,:::s 0iso on tJ-i,:~.· :Jppellants r•,i;:-i:..i y it is not for the courts .to microSCC/iise accust,-ls min,.\ ,J:::- thinkirrgo· This br2Lcc; an aft~r thoughi, unrelated to t!12 pl~a 1 and the way i t was t~~en or n.::corclc,d, T acc·:>rd it _the resp,:ctu:::iL.ty ·,,:E _being rej0ccbx1 .. I" shall b1J<.:e; qrounc'!s (2) (3) 2nd (4) t,,gethero I 3CC2:Yl: c:·1e thL.-19' th,! i}f)!)ellants ·v-}ere c:Ycryinrr on 1YJ.sin,,ss in partn~r.E:}·d_iJ unc1.•.,r th., styl,~, ur :firm granc.: Servicr.~ .~;'.:c:ti:Jn, and the fallacy I um J·,c-vL,~: in Jrui.1.nds (2) (3) 2.nc:. (,l). is that a partD(Jr in ;,1_- firm, dct,s ,v.:;t, j:)Ut the firln do·:~s C,:'.1."ry 0n :::•uS.L:t,':"!:',S, and tht: oni::: t:,1.(:.:re:fore lL:>J.2 in LcWo This is nc t th<,c ,)OSi t:iun, - a partnership is u~1ly a rd.::1 ti:)n v:hich c·ontr·,yctually subsists 1J,:,b·Jeen indivi'd'Ll:tls cc.r::yLig on busi:,.ess in commcm for ,,rofito Th•.~Y are collectivE:-:ly c,.lLxl n firm, not out o·f ind~:pend(~nt L:::c:;al sL:tus., .nor is it;. a .l,::::qo.l enti tyo The r:iarti1c~rs carry on

bl,,sinc:ss, both as principals 2.ncl as agents for ~2ch othet', within ihc scope of their partnership busines_s o So that, i t is <irreneous to say the firm was res;,u(1sible, it is but the nartn(,irs th,:it r,mst answero This is to show th•:., 1;osi- tion of a p~rtnero However, when it comes to liability of p~uple like the uiY")ellants, under this act we hc:i.v.c ~ section 43 of the National Provident Fund Act plncing, liability on individuals in appi:ir,.:::nt control of an as S()ciationo It provides and I quot,!:- "Wh,'"re an ofh'!ncc~ under .this ii.ct by 0:1(; as'sociation of pcrs:)ns, :\;,/he:ther 'corporate or unincorporate, _is found to h;_we committed with k;,owled·9:i, orc-onni'variC:e of, or, is attributable to an~ act or 16f □ ult on the part uf, any LV?r's.on or pr/rsons . in. i'l.PlJc.rc::,t. cont_rol _o·f the c)SSucL::tion of pt~rson·s,. the: p,~r·s()n er µ'c,rs"ons' in ctpjJar..,nt Control and th," associo't.ic-n of ·persons sh~l l be "'deemed to have co'mmitte:d th,: o'ffence. I I . As i t obviously ao~cars the off8nc0s, w~rQ attributable to d••~Dult of- th:c!se j_ri. control" of this· fi,rm ·;:rncl th::c ,':'.rn211ants b'eing th:2 ones, t'h0y are de(~med to b,3Vl, conirnit'te:cl thee offences chorsred. Th<, aJY",elLmt' s· further say tbc1t t:1e sc,ntence was excessive. The mo:1:ximum fine i:s 2,ooo'/= or i)' term not to'XC2(Xlii"l(j six months imprisonrn::~nto The: fi,·,e ,_,f 2U0/= or 150/= is defi:litely minimal, demanding no intt..:rfer,:::nc2. ;i.s th,~ plea wa_s urwqui voco,l anc1 s,•ntcnce minimal, the arp0,:1ls are Jisr,1is_sed tota,llyo Dt:"'!li v,~r•,•d this 13th :i.ay of l,l.1gust, 1977 o E o 1,;-0 'KATI TI,' JUDGE: HIGh COURT --~~_..........,.,,., .. - r1'"i1,NZ/,.