Boniface s/o Malinga v. R., Crim. App. 235-A-72, 22/8/72.

 

Boniface s/o Malinga v. R., Crim. App. 235-A-72, 22/8/72.

            BRAMBLE, J. – This is an appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of stealing contrary to section 265 of the Penal Code. A sentence of twelve months imprisonment was imposed.

            The appellant was alleged to have been caught red-handed stealing yams in the complaint’s shamba. He claimed that he had bought the yams in order to re-sell them at a profit. He gave the purchase price as Shs. 13/= and then Shs. 12/= and called no witness. The trial magistrate did not believe him. There was enough evidence to sustain the conviction.

            The appellant contends that having regard to the fact that he is a first offender and the value of the goods is only Shs. 20/=, the sentence is manifestly excessive. The theft of crops is likely to affect the economy of the country which is largely agricultural and while the sentence is, perhaps, severe I cannot say that it is manifestly excessive.

            I certify that after perusing the record I am satisfied that this appeal has been lodged without any sufficient ground of complaint and order that it be summarily rejected.