Hassan Rashid vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1985) [1990] TZHC 610 (19 September 1990)

< I . ', .•• 1· ·.·• . ,. ' .... AT /.1h.lb'fI CRIMINAL APFfilAL .NO.- 107 OF 1985 (From the decision of the Distri'ct C1:>urt of Hanang at Babati in Criminal "Case No~ .61 of 1982: ~~ N:~ K_. ?1ABON0'0,. sq _ _,. $/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) HAS;;iAN. Ri-\S.HIO •••.• · •.••••• ~ • .- ••• -- •.••••.••.•••••• ·• AP p ELLANT I,:: (Origial Accused) I versus . TH£ RE? UBL IC •. •. ,· •·•·, • • • •. •·• • ...... ~ ••• •...: •• RESPONDENT . . .. · ( Orig,inal t>roseoutor) --------1- ....... ,...., .... ... ____________________ _ .. , ... MR~~_<,2!. ." ,, ... ' JtJO.GJ,1£NT The ,.appellant Hassan Rashid was c:opvicted by the District Court of Hanang on two counts ot stealing by agent, contrary to·-ec-t:ion 273 (b). of 'tlle _Penal Code. He was said to. have committd the offences auring the period between 24bh Aprils 1981 · · · . is and 19th November•. 1981. In the first count he/said to have . :· - ' . stolen shillings 59,,94'6/= "which was eritr'-l,sted to him by N.M.C. . ' . ,, . , -' . Babati to buy .maiz.e a·d- ha- cr°ops from s.igino Villagers·"• ·· In the scond .count h .aid· to have st?ln· shillings ·_31,070/10 . f . . • .•. I ''which was entrusted. ~6-him by G;J?EX Babati to buy pigeon peas and_ 1 castor Sd:-5 ••• .ii•;sig'ino illa~~1s-i• 1 • He was sentenced to'· fj,ve years imprisherit on eAch cc·.in~~ the sen·tences to run c<,mcurrGntly. He .wa aiso ordered to _pay the two amounts to the . '. _:.; JJ ,... . . . _respec'cive-- organisations .• '. The appeilant was an accountant of Sigino Village, . . .. ~ : . . . No one fram eit~~~:ihe·,tibl Mitiing.Corp6raion :' j :,_ • • :" 1 ..• (NMC) or GAl?EX gave,,ei/idnce to explain the kind of arrngement there was· .. tweh the ·resp~~{·.1. v·. organisations and either Sigino vi1fijij cir tlte appellnt. · The only pieoe of ev.i<.lene whih throws ?,oe light on the ria-tur of the ... . . . ' understanding between t)1~ ~ational Millihg Corporation and Sigino Village was· giveii'-by P.wa·.;.. Mohamed' ~thurnan, the Chairman ~f Sigino viilfiget duririg tJ"ie relevant per.iod·. •. · ... ·· . _,, • I • . •

.. yd .riv.l: !3·w :.,(!£.i.!:: .. ·-1 Ji,ll . . . I.• psI.i.tv ,on..tle :L I t·i.N_lr.:;l'O . ' ... '~ . . - ' . 2 He saic.l und ':i: quote:-· ... IIThe village is paid the money·by NM.c. by cheque which is deposited in the villag account.-·-· 4'he··"i i 1: a9~"'tnn'"fs S tted -a cfteq'tle Apparently the village was an agentl'hf NYMcC fnd noloss2:ryP8f l5Ai;ii:;)l:?•} 0 ir"bufl.n98t6ps'':'!:f"rm ·0:£1l:hgers and paid . 1 fhe"fiilfoJ3Jh§ifl6ft;s9hSBfge'.I§'atras-z 3 lfu:l :.tw, ( .:J.;,-11 • I •' a.noljG 2 ln 5 M~~ !6mo§ere, ·ffafii!tl'j~~aeeiw A teo,Pie1nf8rl -tHif 1 Pes pondent "io !'.;OSlq Ketlffu?,hansm$6!e<!rlth'e t! 6 iJi:fVm8n9 1 ai' #}t6fehnt was . \it!tt_lae,i1Ifial;iflotO!iffiet-fi!l-i;z.li.@'110r•c.ru:tE/_R niorigy;.,_i?fi::,fiw of t.he bnG r:l!ifiM_@m@r-ttPM I.e:Jil fefl@<ij8f p. llWt'Jg tt!~~ neir~:;i!.i£~ is gr..-les eab'l!i\shC!i' ➔ th&t•!i t 'is Vthe Yofiey1Ji t:ric.frwn 11-i8m , 1 tJe~i111age . ' ... ' . ' . ' - .• . • ae~~Ufit jt1hl*cl:\ e.ts ssto.l?#Jri 7uthen 6.{f .t1s Cijf l 1 i£ge money wJ'i4'ch is . . stolen, even though the money can trace its origin in either the N.M.c. sl;. ~~I?':: u1:e 8 yiillage becomes the special owner of the money. The appellant therefore ought to have been charged with stealing by sevant, contrary to section 271 of the Penal Code. The question now is whether, if it is assumed that there was evidence to sustain convictions of stealing by servant, such convictions can be substituted for the convictions of

• •• ·• -- ••- ,, • 111 ~,'.,f•••·. ....... ,2 •jlff.,•. 'I'" "1."':.• •• ., "'f ••• !, ♦ •.: stealing by agent. ,j ~.j F~.i .. !.tiO:·\t, ··•\l'j :,_ 4 ,7/, . ..-- 1 j . ... ·.._ -1 ... ir· 1 t:,·_ ... ·• -, 1 .·:· •. :"" .. li..J• It would appE;ar, in my opinion, ~hat a . 1
• J Li,:: ·'d;;:t.JfctioJ_[''f 1 £'fialig i;{serv"a 1 fjc~~tjra;y' t·. 2fi',f :tthe tlenal • • .. ; :_ . ..L ' ,: ,. t' .: .. l 1 C,.. Code cannot be substitut€d fo a conviction of stealing by n .... -~ .J .1..: , ~ ·"..t • - r. · i, :: l . n...., · , h ?-1 1 .., ~ ,~Lf l , 1 .,; .. ~ · agent ·contrary -to section 273 (b) of the PenaJ. Code. This is 1 6eJfJte c:)e nJ:JJI'iJs --gp--s:ti;e3S.:. --c1~~ ;.if~~{ Procedure anol:J-f nr §irs cr;Ji6't ('~~~cified':.,?j fd ::., ·'B;at : ti 1 n.f b}·.1:gent and le., tOslq Ji~~1ft'J by=;iJJa 1 t'';)atf;;a€t ' 12 rriilf:uin;gt[e;{Ge/i, {B\ears ;Jfb 1.::. -•-:xi., 'Qfl 1tt Ck j dol ::.mo.;. awod:f ,i:;,J.,:", · ;:..,v. ,·lv imprisonment so "that neither offence is 'minor to the other. t'no 110U6:1or.10:.) poJ:11,tM l,J.noJjr,t, 9(ij nssw.:h..id :,,.:. ;;.:.:,:, n:,.-,,j_nu Nor is either of:fence cognate to the other. Apa·rt from 1=Jr1.,.4. tf1,.J'IT..,t •·, ••. ;l. , .... r.•. ,,, ... ""1 l ·.~ .J •. ..,. :; 1~-tt. section 300 of the Criminal Procedure /\ct; 1985 none of the .c. ,..., rr,-~ i ~,, other sections up to 310 are of. any help. ,., i.:·· . .............. ~ .. ,--•-·: 'i' ..ln \ -.f,I \ ! · :·:·•~ ... , .. Arising from • .- ••• /3 ~ , .. ; ) :~: .·, .. ·;.· ' .. -:;, ·- .... I ,' ' • ·:·, "'.:-r· '", .. (, : .. ; . , ... •· 'r . . ~ i (, . . , .. , ~ ' ......... . ~ -vv:·.,; L : : .. ft • .,, ......... _.,. __ , ...... ·••' . '

. \ .... :--/ 3 Arising from the above discussion, it would appear that th'e appellant was wrongly convicted under Section 273. (b) of the Penal Code and the error, though admittedly technical, is not curable. The convictions must- therefore be quashed and set aside. The sentences and compensation orders must also be set aside; Ev~n if I were wrong in holding as I have done above, it seems to me that the case was so poorly prosecuted that the been charges cannot be said to have/proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was no witness from either N.M-.C~, or GAPEX to testify on the amount of money the two organisations actually paid to the villagers, Frthermore, there was no evidence that after the moneys were deposited into the village Bank account it was the appellant alone who was withdrawi-ng them. Indeed, the evidence was to the contrary. P.W.l said - "-----it was the duty of the accountant the . . accused to collect.the money from the bank and keep .it ln the safe. ------Even·if a <:_.ommittee member goes to colleQt -.he money, he hands it over to the accountant for safe, custody". (my underlining for emphasis). is The ques_tion remains un'swered by' the witness whichL what· i the <:Qmmittee member did not hand over such money to the appellant for safe custody? Would_ the appellant still be held responsible for it? Is it possible that that was what had happened, J'.n view of such uncertainties, it can hardly be said that the guilt of the appellant had been laid bare by the prosecution. The appeal is allowed. Since the appellant already completed his prison sentence, it is futile to order his release from prison. AT BABAT!: .19/9/90 : ~ ... _ :-,c ::= {J. A. Mroso) JUDGE