198207N

I-LLU OUT 0? TANZANIA AT TABORA APPELLATt JURISDICLION HIGH COURT CR1 1-APP ATh 10, 159 OF 1979 ORIGINAL CR NAL CASE NO L3 OF 1978 1 Er OF THE D1SWtLLOW çcii o MAWA DSIfIG1t AT MASWA Before MAHIZI0 Fsqpitrict ( MagiStrate SAIDI © ALLY APPELL •i :,.;t ,•, •.L. - versus:' 1. RESPONDEN . CHARGE ,-r Stealing by Public Servant c/sd 276 & 265 of the - Ir Pena1 Code Cape 16 Vo] el of the Laws 1 - Ill 1)CVIjNT CHIPETA. J. • •'•.•• The appellant,, Saidi alias A]1.y.Kánd -xaF charged with and coninctd o1h'e offence of scelirg by pbla servant c/ss, 270 and 26 of the reri Cooe and was sentexicéd. to five years 1 L • •_ • • I•: •• •. -k 11 Pri6onment 0 ffc now ppea1s, - In brief r the p"Qsecut1on's evidence was tha between March and lieptember, 197 he appellant was a store—keeper- C.cashj.er at thejiural'150di -dal Aid School at Mawa where the nc1pI 01 the ohooJ erie Dr'Mkora pw,i) wai the appellant's supror Theapp1lnr duties inelude a. reccv - ng gr'od and , keeping them in tne store and issuing theniot s and when rqiured for the School s purpos The appell nt, it was in evidence, was the only preoi who had custody c the store keys On 21st Mrch l978 the appellant1 receivd from P.W.l 200 metres of TakronPolyster wiute calico whch he duly entered in his ledger kept for the ptiipose bii 22nd March, 1978, the /2 tLppellant himself brought. 200 metres of AmerIcan white calico which he again duly entered .n his ledger. TheOe calicoes were to be used for thaking•student' uniformse On 8th September, 1978 a tailor appointed by the School to make the uniforms •went to ° P0W,1 and told him to tell the store—keeper (appellar) to issue the said tailor with calicoes so that cI nr r;: instructed the appellant accordingly Surprisingly, the appë1nt reacted very rudely. He told P.W.l:— ,. 0 "1 cannot send you to th-'sho.al stOr because Iam s i ck 2ak:t1ese school store keys yourslf and gpf that needed r,c•loth yourself if yu wish' Whereupon tMappellant threw the keoAP,Wl's table. p.W.1 had to plead with the appellnt before th pl1nt calmed down and took away his keys Next dr, P.W.1, the tailor and rthe Appellant proceeded to the store, and when the applant openedit,. there was very lit.tle lft of the callcoesr 1hen asked by P.Wel, the appellant said that4tbse were tho ly once loft ii the stcre. P.W.1 becane very suspeäu..s and so a check was md which revealed that 110 metres of american ca1co and 164 metres oC'acron wer missr 'U h a a the appellant also confirmed that shorbsge When 'aisk.-ed about it, tb?et,appellant could give nà élaticn0 It was also in avid erice that the stork had -ricrt been broken 0 tniis defence, the appellant said that he only kept the original keys and' that the duplicate lçeys were kept by P.W.l. He added that at soie stage the calicoes er kept by the tailor and not in the stdre, The .learned naagist'ato carefu1l,r Osidered the evidence béfore him andhr Zicu..Lty incce,pting the prosecution's evidence and rejecting as rd.i.culous that of the defence. He accordingly found as a fact that there had? been such shortages; .43 • 0 4 .. . ..- :•. ,J C'- t1ttike appellnt:as the only person who had custody of 't'I stb'e keys; 'and 'that there had been no breaking into the, store He accprdingly convicted the appellant as' charged. '1 I entixely. agree with the learned magistrate. If, as he appellant claimed the calicoes were sometimes kept in the I tailor's room,ne wonderSwhy he should not have challenged the tailor when lie ( e'aior) wont to ask for the calicoes. Iristeadof doing so, he rudely told P.,W.l to go and issue thj cloth, himself And if PW.l had duplicate keys to the store, why did the appellant find it necessary to throw the keys to P.W.l? On my own view of the evidence, therefore, the convictic was justified As for the sentence, it was the statutory minimum. I The appellant 0 therefore, cannot be heard to complain against In fine, this appeal is 1orc 1 L-jy dismissed in its entireyM '1 /1 l; I / y Sgd B' CHIPETA, JUDGE. Delivered in lii 32 "'"- II j / r •,., Sgd>: 'B'D CHIPETA JUDGE. r,