William Kibona v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 439-M-68, 13/6/68, Mustafa J.
Accused was convicted in Primary Court of housebreaking and theft, and sentenced to a fine of Shs. 50/- on each count, or two months’ imprisonment in default. Realising that he had erred in imposing fines, the magistrate forwarded the record for revision. The District Magistrate asked accused whether he wished to appeal against conviction and accused replied that he did not. The District Magistrate, in a revisional order, found that the articles involved were worth Shs. 200/- set aside the sentence and substituted one of two years and twenty-four strokes for burglary, and six months for theft, to run concurrently.
Held: A District Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 18 of the Magistrates Courts Act, if it wishes to enhance a sentence, must, under the proviso to section 17 (b) of the Act, give specific notice of enhancement of sentence. It is not enough to inquire whether accused wishes to appeal. Case remitted to the District Court for service of notice of enhancement of sentence and disposition according to law.
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.