Iddi v. R. Crim. App. 10-A-71; 30/4/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Iddi v. R. Crim. App. 10-A-71; 30/4/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

        The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of bhang and Moshi and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. He appealed against conviction and sentence. The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the accused was found in unlawful possession of bhang.

                        Held: (1) “The identity of the staff found with the appellant was made out by two Policemen who professed expertise at and considerable experience in handling such matters. As far as the identification of “Moshi is concerned the evidence of Policemen is sufficient following the cases of Jumanne Juma v. R. [1968] H. C. D. 304 and R. v. Amri Rashidi [1968] H. C. D. 302. As the identification of bhang is concerned, the position is quite different. In the case of Salim Haruna v. R. [1968] H. C. D. 37 Cross J. (as he then was) held that: “It would be unsafe to base a conviction on the bald evidence of a Police Constable that he knows bhang without any inquiry as to how the acquired his knowledge.” In this case, we have merely the bald statements of the two Police Constables. There was no enquiry as to how they acquired their expertise in identifying bhang. Accordingly the conclusion that the appellant was found in unlawful possession of bhang was not supported by evidence and it should not stand. (2) Appeal allowed.