Audrea Lusambo vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1978) [1978] TZHC 354 (1 January 1978)

-. - -.--------- - IN THE HIGJ COUR2 UI' TJZ AcTIA AT EYJ APPELLATE JJRISDICTIOf CRnmTAL APP11.L O. 169 OF 197 8 (oluGnAL cRn'aIIAi. CLSE 10. 238 OF 1978 OP THE COURT OF 1PANDA DIICT AT IvtPAi)A) 3p MtGISThATE AUDREA LUSA]iJ3O APiILhiT versus THE R:T:tU3LIC i.PONDE1'T SAMITTA J. 9 This is an ai'peal from a decision of the district court of Epanda district whqreby tha appellant was convicted of obtaining money by fal3e pretences, contrary to s. 32 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to a term of ihe monthst imprisonment. The app 3a1 mus be /issed, It was clearly established at the trial that on Sept. -9, 197 3 , at about 1.45 p..rn, the appellant informed one aia d/o Knco.. that he was an emplqyeepf the firm popularly knca as-, BOR • -he girl had expressed her desire to buy a pair of rubber shoes from e-.firmp IIpanda shop. The appellant received shs. 301= from t1e girl promising her that he was going to buy the shoes fo - her the td,'he disappeared from the scene. The appellant was not an employee of DORA. The cbmp1ainart' s- story was corroborated by one -Thflculü s/o Nestory. When he was arrested, the .ppei1ant was found to be in possession of shs. 301. - In his .deience he denied, at least by necessary implication, to have met the complainart. He asserted that he was found in possession of shs. 36/80 and nbshs. 30/= as asserted by the arresting officer. In hiS petition of appeal, however, the appellant claims that the amount he a' found in Dossecson of wc sl-'s. 150,'. The learned trial magistrate acceptcd tne tostr'oi of tLe co'p1ainant as - eoróbbrated by Buk1u Thr is nothing on the redord of the cse or in the pét±tibn of appeal which can rih±ly be used as a peg on which /. , ..