19770831 TZHC Arusha

C~C_,4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT LRUSI-IL APPi.TiTE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMILL APPEAL NO._320 O' .1974 ORIGINAL OIMINAL CLSE NO:, 229 OF 1974 OP THE DISTRICT COURT OF i.RTHEZA DITPLICT AT LflJIIEZL BEFORE: A P. . çITA Esq.. District Nagistrate T TI? TT 1 DDT'T T 1TIil . . . * .' . . . . • • • e • • . o .. •. e . . a a a o a • • . - • - - . .sLJJJJ.L (Original Accused) • . versus THE. REPLIC ... .-, . . RESPOT .... - (Original Prosecutor) • JUDG.IENT' L!NZAVASO J. The appe11ua was char(-;od with s oiling pric e-,controlled goods above the maximum fixed price c/os 10(1), 2O(1) of Cap. .309 and corruption c/s 3(2) of the' Pmovcnt-ion of Corruption Act - Act F-bi 16 of 1971 o was convicted on both counts and sontencod to a fine of 600/= or six months imprisonaont on tao first count and ycr S imprisonment on the charge of corruption. He' i appealing against both the convictibus and the sent one es. As ri'21 1-it1y' argued by the learned state attorney there was ample evidence implicating the accused with the offences charged. There was evidence from one, Hatibu Lbdifllah, (P.W2), a councilior of the area that three customers (P.W.4, P.Wo5 and P61,7.6), had complained to him that thoaccusod who owned a shop, had. sold to them a kilo of sugar for shs.4/= instead of ths.3/= the Government' price at that time. The coirncillor and the complainants wont to accused's shop and on being interrogated by the counoillor the accused admited having sold a k14o of sugar at sh.4/= to the complainants but added that 1 had to sell the sugar at that price because he had bought it at a high price per kilo. Thereupon the cou.ncillor told the acouod that he was going to report him to the police. There was also evidence from not less than two witnesses t iat-' in the evening of the same day, 20.5.74, the accused visited the c.ounci1lor.s house and offered to him £1 - .15/= as an inducement not to report him to the police. In his evaluation of the ovidence the learned magistrate found the, prosecution witnesses to he truthful and rejected accused's defence that he did not coiomit the offences. On the ovidence........6/2 2 On the evidence thero was nothing to suggest that the coundillor had reason to tcll lELcs against the accused. Eqti.ally there vasn reason why acdusoci' s fellow—villagers should have docided to'cook ip'afalse story against hina. The finding. the loarncd rial nagisirato ws wholly baod on the credibility of the w±tnods Ise no valid reason to interfere with bria1courtts fjflflçIQfl natters offact. The sctoncoon the charge of cortion is the mandatory nainifua In the event I agree hwith tho ou1lic that. this appeal should b dismissed and I so ordoi. ;LRuHJ:3l/8/77: (N. 'S.ITZ) JUDG -'--\ IsJ/1 ITPM. I - -'