19740122 TZHC Dodoma

4Lc- 45M' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO0 217/72 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO 0 285/ 1972 g OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF IRINGA DISTRICT AT IRINGA Before A. Bahati • SO, 0 000000000000000000000000 . . Resident Magistrate TUNAINIELMACHANGE 00000000000000000000000000000000 Appellant 0 (Original Accused) versus• 0 THEREPUBLICO 0000000 000000000000000000000000 00Respondent (Original Prosecutor) charqe,: 1st Personating a Public Officer c/s 100(2) of the Penal Code 2nd Rogue and vagabond c/s 177 (3) of Penal Code 0 J U D G M E N T MNZAVASJ O In this case the appellant was charged with and convicted of personating a public officer c/s 100(3) of the Penal Code, obtaining money by false pretences c/s 305(1) of the Penal Code, forgery c/s 333 and 337 of the Penal Code, uttering a false document c/s 342 of the Penal Code and being a rogue and vagabond c/s 177(3) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to a total of two years aohalf imprisonment 0 As I minuted when admitting the appeal for hearing there was ample evidence in support of the convictions. The appeal was only admitted for argument in connection with the learned trial magistra- te's order that the sentences imposed were to run consecutively0 As rightly argued by the learned state att.irney the offences, though comm- itted on diferent occasions they were all partand parcel of the same campaign to defraud. This Ieing the position all the sentences should have ben made to run concurrently - See the decision in CHIKONDAMU vs R (1967) H.C.D. 403, JOSEPH KASHMAKULA vs R (1970) H.C.D, 201 AND the recent decision in MOHAMED vs R(1972) H.C.D. 102; to mention but a few of the decisions on this point0 Guarded by the above-.quottd dec- isions I have no alternative but to alter the consecutive order to a concurrent one,. - The sentences of 1 year imprisonment on counts one, two, four, five and six and that of 3 months imprisonment in count suen as well as that of 18 months imprisonment on count three are to remain undisturbed but they are all made to run concurrently. This would mean that the accused is to serve a total of 18 months imprisonment only0 The order to refund to the complainants all the money the accused obtained by false pretences stands. Save for the variation in the prison sentence the appeal fails in its entirety. 1fr DODOMA N. S0 MNZAVAS. 22/1/74 JUDGE