R. v. Hamisi Crim. Rev. 5-Dodoma-72, Mnzavas, J.

 

R. v. Hamisi Crim. Rev. 5-Dodoma-72, Mnzavas, J.

The accused was, on his own plea of guilty convicted of buying and transporting four bags of maize from National Agricultural Products without prior permission c/s (2) and 6(3) of the National Agricultural Products Board Act 1964. The accused was sentenced to Shs. 200/= fine and his bags of maize forfeited. The case was admitted for revision. The High Court found that the facts of the case were more consistent with the accused’s buying maize for personal use that for commercial purposes.

            Held: (1) “I agree that the National Agricultural Products Board Act, Cap. 567, was not intended to stop villagers from selling and buying agricultural produce among themselves if the produce so bought was for the consumption of the buyer and his family. The Ordinance is in my view principally meant to curb the buying of agricultural produce by big merchants from peasants of low prices during the time of harvests and sell the same produce to the peasants and workers later at exorbitant prices. It is not meant for the ordinary peasants and workers who buy produce for no other reason but for their food. (2) “To support a charge of this nature the prosecution should have clearly shown on the facts that the accused bought the maize in order to re-sell the same at a higher price to the public. As the facts stood it cannot be said that the charges against the accused disclosed any offence. This was in my vies a typical case where the learned magistrate should have exercised his powers under section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code by rejecting the charge.” (3) Conviction quashed and fine ordered to be refunded.