R. v. Juma Swalehe, Crim. Rev. 6-D-68, 26/1/68, Duff J.
Accused was convicted in Primary Court of stealing by servant [P.C. s. 265,271], and received two sentences, both under the Minimum Sentences Act. The District Court, hearing the matter on confirmation of sentence, held that only one sentence should have been imposed and the Minimum Sentences Act did not apply to the offences charged. An order for 15 month’s imprisonment was substituted.
Held: (1) Although the charge involved two sections of the Penal Code, only one sentence may be imposed for the offence of stealing by servant. (2) This offence is not among the offences scheduled in the Minimum Sentences Act, and a sentence there under is improper. (3) The sentencing power of an appellate court ---i.e., “a superior court exercising its revision jurisdiction” --- is “measured by the power of the court from whose judgment or order the appeal before it has been made or is being revised …..” The District Court is therefore limited to imposing the maximum sentence that could have been imposed by the
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.