Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Rashidi s/o Ramadhani v. R., Crim App.163-D-68, 29/5/68, Georges C. J.



Rashidi s/o Ramadhani v. R., Crim App.163-D-68, 29/5/68, Georges C. J.

Accused presented a cheque for Shs. 420/- at the National Bank of Commerce in Iringa. The words on the cheque clearly stated the amount, but the numbers appeared to be “Shs. 4,210/-.” Accused replied to a question by the clerk, stating that this was the sum to be paid, and was then given this amount. He was convicted of theft, and sentenced under the Minimum Sentences Act on the ground that the funds were Government property, and ordered to pay compensation.

            Held: (1) Accused ’s action here constitutes larceny, as defined in section 258 of the Penal Code, “because quite clearly he had fraudulently converted the excess paid to him to his own use,” with the intention to steal being fully formed at the time he received the money. (2) As a corporation, the National Bank of Commerce has an independent existence. “Even though the corporation is owned by the Government, its property cannot be said to be Government property any more than can the property of a company be called the property of its shareholders, no matter own few they may be.” Thus, the case is one of simple theft, and the Minimum Sentences Act does not apply. (3) Accused did not plan to rob the Bank, but instead “was subjected to a sudden temptation and he yielded. There was gross carelessness on the part of the employee of the Bank which created the situation.” A sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment is too severe. (4) Since the case does not fall under the Minimum Sentences Act, the power of the High Court to order compensation is limited to an

Order for Shs. 2,000/- It is therefore preferable to allow the Bank to pursue its civil remedy. Sentence reduced to 6 months; order for compensation quashed.

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments