Abdallah s/o Saidi vs Republic (HC Criminal Case No. 238 of 1988) [1990] TZHC 589 (24 October 1990)

H:CGE ·cou:,:-::T CRJ:rn:HLL c,·,.cS Ho. 238 OF 1988 011' Tff:i: DISTICT COUJ:':.-T CF E "JHGA DI'.:::':CP.ICT LT IC·TLlTGL ABDALLAH S/tIDI ~ • • • ♦ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • APPLL/ .. HT . . Ti::IIE RE::?uBLIC • • • •. • ;, • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • ••• • •• • • REG?Ol-T;):;HT JUDG3EINT The appellant A::,:·.-,LLLI,}. S.LLJ ·::as convi ted of two counts namely for stealing by person employed n Public service c/s 270 and 265 c/s 317 of' the of the Penal Code and :f'roudulont false accov.nting Penal Code. He was accord:Lngly sentez-,.ced to concur:r-ent terms of' five y:?.)ars impriso:n .. r;ient and ·.ras :f ... u.ther ordered to return or refund rather his emplbyer the cw of sns. 14,837. These are ap9eals aginst conviction a...'l"l.c.i sentnce. Th.0 apell:::mt had indicated thatLd~:i not intend to appear a:-1.d 1 coi.seq_;__,e:ntly proceded in his absence. The rei_:mblic whi'Ch · ras re~:n:·esented by Mr. l:b11.c:, the Senior · State L ttorney, does not s,.ppo:..t t:,.e ccnviction ar .. d sentence ioposed . on, the· appella:n.t. Mr. Viono in :;.--is s-c.:mission told the court that he did not suport the decision of the trial court on the following gro· .. ;,.nds: - (a) There_ ,,re..s nc evidence led by_ the prosecution to show that the appellant was the author of the doc-:..::.ments wb.:!.ch wez,e the subject matter against the accused, (b) As a result of the prosecution's failure to show th2,t the accused was the author c:f the contested doc:.1,nonts· it ci..n not be said with ru:iy degre0 of certj_tude that th.G a.ccusec is the person -:1ho stol0 the monies in question. ( c) That none of the c.oc·,.m:::n ts alleged in the charge against the accused were tGndered in court as evidence against the accused. ·H) thus wondered how did te tril Magistrate satisfy hi □ oel~ that the appell-!?,nt was culpable o:f the ch::;rges ag::...in:::; t him., · • . . • . . • • • • • •/2 . :

... '. • I 2 ( ct) Tb.a·~ tl-v cvidoncc o:f· P • w • 1 G::i.EGORY · ant P.W.2 MWIHYIMKuu, who were the only witnC3SCG called by tho prosecution, w:1.s not·aubstantive. That being tho c ·cs.t.::, of. af'fairo the lc&rncd tric:.l Rccidcr:t Magistrat·e could have, not on the baoid of, ·the cv.i.dcnco of' ouch wi tnco.::;a ground a convicion against tho-accuacd ·• All tn all tho trial Magiotratc ohould have givcfi tho appclla:-:. ~ the bcmcfi t of' doubt oo occnsaicnod. l rcspoctfully agree uith the aub □ iooi,on of the lornod Senior Sto.to A:f;-torncy. 1 o.m furt~::or u~,o.blc to :fo:rbenr m·ontio1,.ing that " Diotrict :::cgistr:.':.r ndmi t to consider wb.othcr the :::,rooecc..1 t:=.on :,..a.o co t:::-i.bliahod the g:..:il t of the a.ccu:::;.:,d on ei th.0r co-c!n t. beyond n. reasonnblc doubt". Having carefuly gon2 through tho :;_::,roceedin of the lowr court coupled ri th tho sub!:lisoion o t:;,1.0 l:0:-.rnod Senior S tel te Attorney •!-.;.ich 1 hcr0by wish to a.dopt in f'ul2.,. 1 a.m now in b. position to hacton to a c-..nsw0r the qi.,;;ca tion ·poood by Justice I·1unuo in t:·1e n0gati ve. 1 :::-l::t.Ve been 'i..ma.ble to :find ov:.;_.::::e:n.c0 which ho.s sho1rm th,.:.t tne appellant prepnre:i the doc1.i.m0n ts in order ·:o f'ncili tc, t0 .t.'-G theft now in q_u:)ation, 1 t would appear that tb.0 tri,l Mngiotrate co:,,-ivicted the appella...1.t .4 merely because he G the ctodion of te cash booka 1 othor.docu- m::::nta r..:,.d tho cc:.sh bo1:. More. oppo:..tunity to commit 0.. crime can not on its ow11. be a basic :for ccnviction. lt would frthor appor thw.t tho trial Mn.gi;tr:ito cc:::victed· -cho appellant on the wo:1.knosa o~ tho defence caoo. As rightly observed by t:ho 10:::.rt :d Genior Sta.te At·co::.ney E;,o:;:,c ·. . . . . ~ ~ io no-whcr0 in tt,o proce:::c1:i.ng.s o:"! ··ch 1 trial co1...u:-t to incic-:,.to th2.t 'tr.:.c co.oh books were t 2:r:d1:::roc1 1::-i.:::'.d nd.,,d tted. by th0 cou::-t o..:::; oz.hi bi ts to be used as 0vienc0 gin □ t te accused. But in his judgocent reapGct to the laarnad tr~~l Maffiotrte this nnomaly is s0riou~ l h3r0by deplora it with t~e contampt it de □ crves. . ........ . /J

.':_'~~ i'•.?:~~r-~~~•.•t#&!Jl!~•l""''J'•/&?ffe~~',; ''•.li~-;;1••n;, ., .,,, ' ~~ . 3

ln the final roslt, l have not slighte::;t hesitation in allowing tl"!C appcc.l.,· a.s the sc cnll 0 :ld tri-1 wai:- n trnv0sity of' justice. T:e conviction; which as :ind:Lcated :,.s not sup;;,ortod b-.;r the i.:;;.epublic is quashed ·.and the nentGncc · a:nc;. order o-f comp0sation impo::;;ec:. th.:::ro:in is sot a.Gide. ln.the unl:Ll;:ely event. that the compensation haG beeI-i paid, it too in to b0 rcf'unclGc1. Delivered in court at Sa.no this 2li.th day ·of October,. 1990.., b_G .• JU.-JGE · 24/10/1999. Dato:- 24/10/1990 ~~ - Mkwawa, Ag •. Ju,:ge Mr. Mono :for the ::;.0:)uJlic. Tl:.e appellant is a'bsont Court: - The juc!gm:,ent i::; read i21. t?.-;.o p:r.Gs::mce of' the counsel :for / the Ro~:-ublic. The appellant tc b0 ;:iott.fL,c': of t':lG judge::rnnt •. lt is accordingly ordered. J .J. Mk,mwa 24/10/1990. I hereby certfy this to be a true copy of he original., - (M.L.k Kamioeyele), . ,. DI-3TlUCT RF.GISTRAR, AAUSHA. JJM/RJ. l ~ 0