19710521 TZHC Arusha
The sentence and forfeiture order were excessive given the appellant's family circumstances and the hardship caused; the sentence was set aside and replaced with a conditional discharge.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19710521 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Appellant: Salimu s/o Muna; Respondent: The Republic
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 1971
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate
- Outcome
- sentence set aside; conditional discharge imposed
- Legal Topics
- Transportation of Agricultural Products, Forfeiture, Sentencing
- 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
Salimu s/o Muna
Appellant
The Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence and forfeiture order imposed by the District Court were appropriate given the circumstances of the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The sentence and forfeiture order were excessive given the appellant's family circumstances and the hardship caused; the sentence was set aside and replaced with a conditional discharge.
Court Disposition
sentence set aside; conditional discharge imposed
Orders
- Appellant discharged on condition he does not commit a similar offence within 12 months of conviction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHAO' APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL ARPEAL NO 84 OF 1971 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO 0 372 OF 1970 OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF KOROGWE DISTRICT AT KOROGWE BEFORE J.S. MWAMI, LSO, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SALIMU s/o M(UNA o 0 0 000 0 APPELLM]T 0 :(ORIGINAL ACCUSED)." VERSUS THEREPUBJIC : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RESPONDENT 0 (onIGIrI PROSECUTOR) CHARGE: Transporting Agriculture Products without a Permit from the Board c/s 6(3) Act0 No0 39 of 1964 Cap 0 567 of the National Agricultural products Board(Transport Control) Order 1969 KWIKIMA, AG J On his own plea the appellant was convicted of transport- ing six bags of rice.without the permission of the NAPB, the said riceheing a "controlled product He was fined Shs, 5OO/,or. five months with an order that the rice be forfeited0 He is how appealing against the sentence and order of the District Court0 The conviction was guite proper, really, as the facts admitted by the appellant fully disclosed the offence0 It must repectfully be pointed out, however, that the sentence cannot be said to be appropriate in view of the fact that the appellant did forfeit his five bags of rice as well0 The appellant himself is partly to blame for the suffering resulting from the forfeiture of his rice6 For had he informed the bourt as he does now that the rice was for feeding his family of nine children and two wives, it is unlikely that the court would have, forfeited it0 In the light of all this the appellant has suffered more than is warranted by the offence, however prevalent its occurrence in the area0 The innocent members of his large family have also suffered0 In order to mitigate all this suffering, the sentence of the appellant' is hereby set aside0 In substitution therefor it is ordered that the appellant be discharged on condition that he should not c.mmit a similar offence within 12 months Of his conviction0 -- 0000 i