Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Anthony v. R. Crim. App. 25-A-71; 30/4/71; Kwikima Ag. J.



Anthony v. R. Crim. App. 25-A-71; 30/4/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

            The appellant was charged with and convicted of compulsory marketing c/ss 67A and 13(1) of the National Agriculture Produce Board (Finger Millet (Ulesi and (beans) Orders 1969 and 1970. The particulars of the offence read as follows: “The person charged on 14th day of July, 1960 at about 13.00 hours at Sanya Village within District of Moshi Kilimanjaro Region did jointly and altogether failed to comply with National Agriculture Produce Orders, in that they jointly and altogether transported in Toyota MSA 927 twenty bags of finger millet from Arusha Region to Kilimanjaro Region without order from the Chairman of National Agriculture Produce Board”. The relevant G. N. and orders were not included in the charge and in fact there is no such offence as compulsory marketing. The charge was very badly worded and the problem arose as to whether or not the appellant had not been prejudiced.

Held: (1) “The offence described as compulsory marketing does not in law exist. What the appellant was being charged with was in fact” carrying scheduled produce without the written permission of the chairman of NAPB or his agent.” This is the offence established by GN 247 of 26th September, 1969 and layer amended by GN 287 of 1970 to include finger millet.” (2) “The charge was so badly worded that had the proceedings not been in Kiswahili as they most probably were, the appellant would have been prejudiced. However the facts admitted by the appellant fully disclosed the offence in all its ingredients. As such the appellant cannot be said to have been prejudice in any way. The defect in wording and the failure to cite the relevant orders is curable under section 346 CPC. Indeed Platt, J. (as he then was) has held in the case of Daudi Hamisi v. R. 1967 H. C. D. 21 that where the particulars set out all the ingredient of the charge the accused cannot be said to have been prejudiced.” (3) Appeal dismissed. Charge amended to include the G. N. and relevant orders.

Post a Comment

0 Comments