Mohamed s/o Saidi v. R. (PC) Crim. App.184-D-68, 19/11/68, Hamlyn, J.

 

Mohamed s/o Saidi v. R. (PC) Crim. App.184-D-68, 19/11/68, Hamlyn, J.

Accused was convicted (inter alia) of burglary c/s 294 (1), Penal Code, and was sentenced to 2 years and 24 strokes under the Minimum Sentences Act. The amount of property stolen was Shs. 109/50 but the amount recovered from the accused was only shs. 39/50. Accused appealed from sentence arguing that since he was a first offender and found with stolen property valuing less than Shs. 100/-, he should be given the opportunity to show “special circumstances” under s. 5(2), Minimum Sentences Act.

            Held: Appeal dismissed. “In the present case, the appellant has admitted stealing goods in the course of the burglary to a value of over one hundred shillings …. And it is quite immaterial as to what value the recovered property amounted to …. It would clearly defeat the object of the Act if an offender could conceal the major part of the proceeds of his theft, where the offence is a scheduled one, and escape from the rig ours of the sentence imposed by the Act …..”