Petro s/o Sang’undi v. R., Crim. App. 783-M-67, 22/11/67, Cross J.

Petro s/o Sang’undi v. R., Crim. App. 783-M-67, 22/11/67, Cross J.

Accused, a Primary Court magistrate, was convicted of corrupt transaction with an agent. [P.C. ss. 3(1), 3(3).] There was evidence that accused called complainant, who was involved in a divorce action, into his office and requested that she bring Shs. 30/- to him; he did not say what this sum was for. The matter was referred to the police, and complainant was given Shs. 5/- notes after their numbers had been copied. She later went to accused ’s office and after she had left the police entered and searched the premises. They found the notes under a table leg near a chair in which accused had been sitting. The complainant testified at the trial.

            Held: (1) The  Complainant  should not be treated as an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration. Even if she knew the purpose of the payment, she would not necessarily be an accomplice. [Citing Rasiklal Jamnadas Davda v. R., (1965) E. A. 201.] (2) The fact that complainant may have been acting as a police decoy also does not require that her evidence be corroborated. [Distingushing Alexandra Parentis v. King, 1T.L.R. 208 on the ground that that case involved professional decoys employed by the police.] (3) In the facts of this case the testimony of complainant was in any event corroborated by the finding of the notes under the leg of the table. [Distingushing Peter s/o Kasembe v. R., Crim. App. 454-D-67 (1967 Tanzania High Court Digest, case no. 338) on the ground that the ruling there stated was based on the particular facts of that case.] Appeal dismissed.