R. v. Jafferji and Chomoko Crim. Rev. 14-D-71; 30/7/71; Biron J.

R. v. Jafferji and Chomoko Crim. Rev. 14-D-71; 30/7/71; Biron J.

The accused were convicted on separate charges of offences against the Exchange Control Ordinance (Cap. 294 – Supp. 65). The first appellant was fined Shs. 100/- or six months imprisonment; the second appellant was convicted on four counts and fined Shs. 250/- on each count. The Republic applied for the sentences to be reviewed on the ground that they were “woefully inadequate and hardly a deterrent.” In each of the cases the accused had transmitted to his bank in London, in the one case to the National and Grindlays Bank and in the other to the Habib Bank (overseas) Ltd., sums of money apparently derived in the one case from Pakistan and in the other from Kenya. In reciting the facts the prosecutor in each case, after stating that the monies had not emanated from this stating that the monies had not emanated from this country and threat the accused on becoming aware of the offence had transmitted the monies to this country thereby

Occasioning no loss to this country, in at least one case, remarked that the offences were technical. When the cases came up for hearing before the High court the state Attorney stated that be was instructed not to proceed with the application for enhancement of the sentences.

Held; (1)”the very propriety of the convictions could be impugned. (After quoting paragraph 2(3) of Part II of the Fifth Schedule to the Exchange Control Ordinance) ……….in both cases the prosecutions were brought on 12^th November, 1970, that is, more than 12 months after the commission of the offense but within the prescribed period when the offences came to the knowledge of the Treasury. However the authorities would appear to have overlooked the Exchange Control (Delegation: The Bank of Tanzania) Order 1966 (Government Notice No. 119 of 1966) which reads: - “1. This order may be cited as the Exchange Control (Delegation: The Bank of Tanzania Order, 1966. 2.” All the functions, powers and duties of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Ordinance other than the powers of the Treasury therein to make orders are hereby delegated to the Bank of Tanzania.” 3. “The functions, powers and duties delegated by this order shall be exercised and performed by the Bank of Tanzania in accordance with such directions as may from time to time be given in writing by the Minister of Finance.” …. The National Bank had the requisite evidence months before the prosecutions were initiated hence they were both time –barred. However, as this aspect has not been raised by either side, id o not consider it incumbent on the Court to deal with it ex Sui motu.” (2) “It cannot be overstressed that the imposition of sentences is at the discretion of the convicting Court. No tribunal will interfere with a sentence imposed by a Court unless the Magistrate misdirected himself in principle or the sentence itself is so manifestly improper that it cannot in reason be sustained. In this instant case the magistrate – incidentally, a senior resident magistrate with considerable experience – cannot be faulted on his direction in sentencing the two accused in principle, nor can the sentences them – selves be considered so manifestly inadequate as to warrant interference. The court therefore does not propose to take any action in revision.”