Paskali s/o Livato (High Court Criminal Appeal No 16/88) [1990] TZHC 116 (8 September 1990)

/o?rf!. r C /4. I /!J It.. +ll. '1 .,,_,-..... IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANLt AT DAR BS S1\LAAM A?PELLATE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 16/88 ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 71 OF 1985 OF TIIE DISTRICT COUTIT OF IFAK.ARA DISTRICT J U D G M E N T . l\lIRMA, PRM(EXT.JUR.) The appellant Paskali s/o Livato was charge with 1 :and convicted of twelve counts of stealing by Public Servant c/s 271 and 265 of the Penal Code, the trial Court being the District Court f Kilombero. The appellant was working at the Kilombero ; Sugar Company as a clerk when he allem,dly ·stole various rJlf:'JS of money at different dates, the proprty of his employer. At the district court eight witnesses gave evidence and the trial Magistrate after hearing the evidence for prtisecution and defence was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of all the 12 counts. Dissatisfied by the convicti)n and septence the appellant appealed to this court. During the hearing of the appeal the appellant did net appear as he propresed not tc •{Q'.:•- Mr. Senguji appeared for the Republic and his submission is to the effect that the Republic supports the conviction for the reason that the evidence on record clearly indicates that th~ appellant stole the money whish is indicated in the charge sheet. I have gone through the whole evidence adduced before the trial court and I am satisfied that the payment vouchers in dispute were prepared and signed by the appellant. No doubt as well that the cheques prepared and issued against the payment vouchers indispute were not received by the intended payers but rather were pocketed by the appellant.. Co::woc10n-,. ·· the appellant I s Company was forced to dish out more money from its account to pay the proper claimants whose claims were fraudulently aid to the appellant, the fraud having been committed by the appellant himself. There is nothing / on record that tends to convince me to decide differently from th judgment of the Learned Principal District Magistrate. The appeal was :,therefore filed without any merit and as such I upheld the .... /2-

! . ··.· ....

2

,-onvictian b.? the trial eourt against. tl\e apllant and in effeot the appeal is hereby dismissed. As for the sentence I eoneur with the Learned State Attornet that the trial Magistrate rightly imposed a. s.entenoe .t 5 yea.rs because the meney stolen exceeds shs. 5,000/-, whi•h in"oney is the property of a· Speeified Authority, vide .-eetion 4 (1)"(d) of the Minimum Se11tenoe, .Aet, 199, •. · I haw •~ caus~ ,t.o. j.l'ltel!'f,eS-~ w~ th e asl~ ~~ -OJt the. Dietriot Cotirt. e/9/1990. The appellant to ba notified at Idete Prisa.ns:• Also the D.t>.P to be notified. \ \ _-..r A. CEMA. - PRM ( EXT. JUR.) a/9/1990

0