Henjewele v. R. Crim. Rev. 64-M-70; 17/2/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

 Henjewele v. R. Crim. Rev. 64-M-70; 17/2/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

The accused was charged with assault causing actual bodily harm c/s 241 of the Penal Code. The magistrate found the accused guilty, but “waived” the conviction and discharged the accused.

Held: (1) “The accused was a first offender and his age was about 28 years. He appeared to have taken some drink. In the circumstances the learned trial magistrate purported to waive conviction. There is no provision in law for waiving such conviction (see R. v. Basamaza (1970) H. C. D. NO. 336). The order entered by the learned Magistrate is accordingly set aside and conviction is entered.” (2) “The accused was “warned and discharged”. The learned magistrate did not indicate, as he ought to have done, under what provisions of law he did so. Section 38 of the Penal Code provides for conditional and unconditional discharge. The fact that the learned magistrate warned the accused and ordered him to pay compensation for personal injury to the complainant (Shs. 250/-) would indicate that the accused was conditionally discharge.