D. P. P. vs Hamisi Omari (High Court Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1989) [1991] TZHC 2005 (18 September 1991)

MSUMI,J: IN 12P£LLATE :URJSJCTIO HIGH COURT CRIIITL APPEAL Nn 120/89 ORIGINlL CRIMINL ~~~ENO. 1635 OF 1988 OF TH.C -:JISTRICT cour;T -:'F ILAL1 DISTRICT .AT I,l.aGISTR.:TL ~ • .P. P • a ••• -• • • •• • • • •• ~ •••••••••••••• .u..t' i> .ci11 .. 1..1.NT ( OlUGil~..'..L ,tJROS.GCUTOR) VERSUS H..'J.HSI OI':nr •...•.. ~ .••...••...••• RESPONJENT (ORIGINAL ACCUSED) JUJ)GMI?TT Re spon-lent was charged with }ireaking an:3.- t;;tealing cox. trary to section 196 (1) anJ 265 of the Pnal Code. He was acquittrd of this offence but he was found guilty ani convicted of eceivin1, stolen property contrary to section 311 ( 1) of the. Penal Code f 0:.; which th ourt sentence hiLl to pay a fne of shs~ 5,000/- or =wo years i □ prison.ont; Tho Dirctor of Pub:ic ProsecutiJns is appJaling against th~ ecquittal in reaect of btealing ani Breakinr.and the sentence Jf fine. Two gr:)Un.:s of a)peal !:ave be;m subuitte·l. First :i."1. : 3 argued that there was enough evienca to c1nvic~ the appallant of acial tealing and breaking rather than cvnvict hi of lsser offence 01· receiving• And saconily e•en if the court proprly cnvictG~ the ap;elant of receiving a cust0dial sentence rbthur than a fina ought to have been i1,.l°posed. The leLrne i :St~. te a tt0rnf.J~- v,ho a_i,1:i,ie .... r,.d f.>r the 'h_public cited the decision in t1e case ,.Jf R. V. Nal.Jr.1oa 1971 HCD .s.12 as an authority for the view that whore a statute Jr ·,vid.es f'.)r a i·entence oi iuprisanwent without an opti'.)n of a fine, n8 ,unishent otler than custodial sentence shJuld be iposal, The only evidence im;liccting the rcsJ?nient with the c:leged stealing and breaking is tha fact t~.t h0 ws found in pOS<33sion of the allegel stolen :property~ The learnec~ trial wagist]'.'.at<l rightly obsetved whetherj on the facts f this case, and applying the doctrine of recent possession respondent was the actual thief or was~ eceive of the alleged stJlen .PrJ.Petty. He wus Jf the a_pinion that he as a eriwinal recGi -f,er •· Vii th res_i,)ect I fin .. nJtning faulty in this :·'inding of fact The allee·stolan JrJcrty c1nsisto :f sundry electlcal eompenents v:.!ich o.rc i.:1.rari~;,:~, s_,c_l: i.1 ;-;i:::0 :.· ... r.c,3 cc.n readily

Resohdent is co □ ins u retil shJJ in which he sells sJLle electrieal coi:ipenents.. Tho &llccc-. st:;len coupenents were f.::mncl 'lisplaye\i in his sho~ which~ it w2ul~ J~~~r, ws nJt far frJ~ the shop of the c-J,,ri_)l:dna.nt fro.:i v;hicl1 they v,ere st:::ilen, This fact uakes resonent 1 s cldiu tL_t tho ~~i~ brts wdre s0l tu hi~ by a passerby it his shJp tJ be Jlausubla. therwise if he was the actual thief he wouli not have dis;leyej thaQ in his shJ? more wo when thee is evi1ence that soe of them hai sowe i1entification rnarks. It is evident that at the tie when he bought the □, resondnt knww that the saij elactridal coJonents were ill-gotten property With this evidence, it is clear that responlenl was a criQinal receiver ratheY than the actual thief~ The learr31 trial wagistrate 1 s finding in thi•. ease is in har:.iony with the decici.)n in R.V.Hassan s/o iwHarned (1948) 1-5 E.A.C.ii.. where at ,?age 122 tk court '1.di- "Whereyer the circurast1..., .. ces are such as to renuer it uore likely •jat the party found in possession li1 not steal it the prasu □ ption is that he raceiv]i it. Evirything ust 1epend on the 6ircustances f each cse. Fctors _such as ti nature of tha property stolen, whether it be of a kini that rendly passes frou hand. t:::i liand, ·n;:;, the trade '.)r occupatiori to which tho ccuse ;ors::>n belongs 1an e.11 .be taken int::> ac·cour: ;. ii. shopkcapor ie2li:1g in second.han:l goods of the _incl involve :l woul :' r . • ·1rally uggest ?eoeiving rther than stealing. Ees·ponJ.ent in this case is a sh.,;,.,k0~ er ::iealing in th8 ki:1·: of goods allege,:. t:.:> have been st0len. -◊Uj,Jl~::: wit1 the fE:ct t· .. :::.t this type of goods can readily μess frJ □ no ten: t another, tli □ ost •atural an-'!. legical c.:-nclusLn: is tL .c r,:.:::i_,,'1:'.•:}'-: fraudule~--'ly received tho goo,:s r2th-:·r t':1an bJinz t··· .. · --t,_:: l 't:_ief. ease of Nalo.:,pa is,-'-n c.:at1cri·.,;y- =->r L_-' lJc.r~.0.·. J·.,ute J1tt'-·1oy's sub1uission. The accu3e.:.: in th::ct c,.:sc: w:,s c.:nvi.:·t_: of tnG 1 fences punishable by fine or/,:;n:'. i;"Jo_):r-is;n..,(r'·,. · 'L·l.:- tri:.: .. l cJu:rt fL.1l him and. on appeal this CJu:rt Lip:Jo(:. ci;.st--i:..l s, ::t0nclS e.s it 'i<' t of the opinion that tile off,:rnc0J Yiore rif•, :..:.n::.. t1.c..-t i .. ,;;ris0nwent /1:J.S the only appropriate deterrent sentenc8 Gcnerlly on aJeal this cou_· is reluctant to interfere·with t:,e -::.iscr0tion of the court in sen·;rncing~ It ean only do so wher0 it is aluur that the subordinate court h1s acted on wrong princi)le :;:::- ov,.:;rL)::r:r3 --~ s,);Jo ;_,c:tterial f;-,ctors or that _:; e sente .. r is llianifestly excessie in vi0~ of th~ circuwstc~ces of the case-.~ee • 'O /3·- t.

James V ...... (1:./50) 1c. .l.C,;.,C_: _ .-1:.:, 21 E.A.C.L.-.,-.270. 1 1 :1-i; .. SGDt(';.J;lC,, . : .:j. 7 e.11 .. :: ---}..) .. s./ J __ Ovuur:.i:-.:-]U (1954) !"!c.- • • 0. . • ., ; -: • :. ~ ' i in the '}rJsnt case cannot be said to suff8r fr::.:.- c.,.ny of t:-ie,-.;.J :;Qfects,. ':'hG fc.ct that· t:,i:s• Go.urf·.:.:;.:£.ght have ,. .- • , .L •·:..: imposed a ustoiiil sentJnce if it had tried this case is not suffioient ground f6r interfring with the discretion of he trial court. As a whole. this appea has no merit and it is accordingly disQissed. 10/9/91. For the Re~ublic - Chiza Respondent - Absent. ll. J,.. 1-.lSUlviI JUDGE \ .... ··:;..,-, LG. DE?LJT Y ·'rt£G ISTRLt: .\ .,