Amiri Nathoo v. R. Crim. App. 719-D-69, 12/11/69, Mustafa J.

 

Amiri Nathoo v. R. Crim. App. 719-D-69, 12/11/69, Mustafa J.

Appellant was convicted of the offence of corrupt transaction. He was charged as follows: - “Offence Section and Law: Corrupt transaction with agent c/s 3 92) (3) (a) of Cap. 400. Particulars of offence: The person charge on the 11^th day of September, 1969, at about 0715 hours at Regional Residential Area within the Township and District of Singida, Singida Region, did corruptly give Cash Shs. 800/- to one Percival Mwidadi, the Regional Education Officer could give him the examination papers for Standard VII for 1969 which his sister namely Naaz Nathoo was a candidate.” The charge was read over and explained to the appellant, who replied as follows: “It is true I gave Shs. 800/- to Mr. Percival Mwidadid so that he could release the 1969 Standard VII examination papers to me for use by my sister Naaz Nathoo.” That was entered as a plea of guilt to the charge. The appellant now appeals on these grounds: (1) the plea was equivocal in that it did not admit that the Shs. 800/- had been given “corruptly”; (2) the charge was defective in that it was not alleged that the Regional Education Officer was an agent acting in relation to his principal’s affairs; and (3) appellant was under severe mental strain due to the fact that he was arrested at 7.15 a.m. and charged in court at 9.00 a.m. the same day.

            Held: (1) “Here the appellant knew exactly what he was being charged with and in answer to the charge he stated that it was true that he gave Shs. 800/- to Percival Mwidadi so that the 1969 Standard VII examination papers could be released to him for use by his sister. When the facts were outlined by the prosecution, which made it perfectly clear that the appellant was inducing the Regional education Officer by monetary reward to let him have the papers so that his sister could make use of them for the Territorial examination, appellant agreed they were correct. It is inconceivable  appellant could have thought the Regional Education Officer could give him the said examination papers other than dishonestly or in a corrupt transaction.” (2) “It is true in the charge the allegation that the money was given to a person who was acting as an agent in relation to his principal’s affairs should have been included, but in my view the omission in this case does not occasion any prejudice and there is no miscarriage of justice. I am satisfied that the Regional education Officer as mentioned in the charge is a Government official and appellant knew he was a Government official, and whatever he does in relation to his official business would be an act in which the Government as principal would be concerned: see for instance Gilbert Ouko v. R. (1966) E.A. 286 at page 287.” (3) “The fact that appellant was brought before the court within two or three hours of his arrest has no significance. In fact it was the duty of the prosecution to take appellant before the court at the earliest opportunity.” Appeal dismissed.