Joel Sagatwa vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1989) [1991] TZHC 2677 (6 September 1991)

Runm.mw., Ja . a e IN 'IRE HICE Cot:11.T 01!1 T1.Jt3.:Ulll /.T DODC!({A (Froo tho decision of tho District Court of Mplr..pw, ct Mpwnp,-ro. in Crii.linnl Caso No. 63 of 198G) JOEL S1.(Wrw:., vorsw TJE R;-::J?UDLIC BES:?C1ID:'Jl1T J .U D .G M E N T Tho c,:;>:.;>Ollnnt w.s convicted by tho District Oouxt of Mpwnpwti of ·n) etoc.li!",e by c public sorvnnt c/se 265 nnd 270 of t:,o lncl Coe.a b). for;crJ o/s 337 of tho Ponnl Coc1c ci.nc o) Uttorincr n fnlso c1ocunont o/s 342 of t10 Porol Coc1o. The nlloc:ations ,roro i:he.t tho e.ppollnnt, ns a cnshior r.t tho District Court of M}?wnpwn, by virtU) of u.s or:1ployr.imt, oolloctoc1 shs. 12,000/a ne foes .for fi1inG nn E',ppocl but s;!r9lc thnt nomy ns it wns not accou11toc1 for• In doi-ng thc.-t, tho appolld1.t forc-oc a receipt, No. M. 070781 - lil:l:ibit irJ. 11 , so ns to look as if it mro r. omuino om whorona it uas not. Ho then uttoroc1 this f'orcrod receipt to Oll) l):.)rson mio pnic1 tho fees cP.w,1J. As c:-. or-,si0:)'.', tho nppollnntts duty, intor alin , was to rccoivo · noroy for t~10 Judiciary in foos, fiws, oto., E:>.nc1 bo.nk it in t!10 l\l.)propriato nocount. T::10 nppollnnt dic1 not do thnt but stolo tho nomy • .••.... /2

:L Uncor section 333 of tho Penal Coc".c, fOrfj'0rr "is t).:..e i.wJd.ne; .·. If - . . . . : . ' of a. false c1qc1.,"r.1e11t. Section 335 (a.) of the Penal Coc1e GXl)lains t::ie uakirlG' of a fc1.lso docuoont as t "Any parson nakes a false c1ooonorit wllo nakos a docmr:ient to oo what in fE.ct. it is not"•- The a::,pollant c1id ' ·. exaotly that u1on he r,1ac1e the exb.i1Ji t 11 .1i 1 JX:lc_eipt ooce,uso it was not a cronuine reo<'.dJ?t L--eant to be used for collccti'611 ·of cou:d fees or fines. It was a false doounont. intended to c_ofri'.nc1 ·e,s cont0r.,r,latacl. in section 333 of t!10 Ponal Coc1e. Tho appellant'· v.tterec1. that false rocoipt to t:ic porso11 uho pa.id tho foos for to appeal. As fo;i:o t:io 0viccnc0, t!:lo p:rosecution eic1 their bast. P.W.l to P.w.7 Gaw cloa:r anc1 woll - corroboratGd ovidonce implic2.tinc1 tho ., appallant with the offences c!J.arscc1. IIo could not escap:, t:ic .. clutohos of tho la:w~ Tho Cl)?<)llent c1uri~ tho tine ho was tried in tl:.c lEm:)r ~ court t-ias sorvi1'l{; a prison sentonco in O(?nnoction wit1 anotb.01· conviction. · Tho a;?:)0llant•s crrounds of apl)cal haw no substnnco. Tl10 concurrent ·sontcncos ir.lposcc1 a..:;ainst tho appellant arc proi)Ox e.m aro to stanc.- T'D.at is I fi-.:i yoars t ii-:1:1riaonoont for tho fil-st coUIIt, as tho of'f0noo is sch.cctu.loq. unc1or tho Minir.:run Sontc11cos Act, 1972, and three yoars for each of tho two othor counts. :00:000 6 (9191 T'J.10 l1j_1poe,l is accorc1il,ely disoissocl in its entirety. JUDa.15 . ' .

3 Dolivoroc.1' in chanbors this 6th tr,3:- of Sopto1.ibol', 1991,. a~:. in the prosonoc ·of Mr·. l{ifunc1ti., Stnto A:ttorncy, anc1 in t::i.o ·v,bsonco of tho,. eppo;la1;rt.: _ ~ ·. • ; I :r-·,;1 . :-: ~ ·r • :· ; . i. DODCMA 6l1/.Jj . .. .. .. t;:, ~ .· t .. ·;.-. : ... '.·', • f .• ,, l,. '.•· ·r ·-- ·vi , -.-.·· ,!is- .. . , ~ nt" :~R .. r.r;;-ll.CU l]ri.Tin;A,) ... ' .. ' .. JUD(]]

• -: . l •... . ;--. :·:, \ ii . ·:: : .c ':•, . - {· It•,~ \ ·,:I ,.·. ·1:."'~-:: #l. ,• .. ~ •·c•:• ~ · .. .l:,. 1, , .. :, ~ : .. J{:: ··.,,•• 1 . .. ' i . ·1· · .. \ ~ ,.·.: -t. ::, , . .. 1 .,._, L' .,, '{ . ·,.•!,:• :,, .• ~.; . ,.

• .. .,_': ~:.:•/ .I. ~ ·j