R. v. Kassam Misc. Crim Cause 19-D-71; 12-8-71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

R. v. Kassam Misc. Crim Cause 19-D-71; 12-8-71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

The applicant was charged with stealing by servant c/s 265 and 271 of the Penal Code. The amount stated in the charge was Shs. 91, 638/10 the property of the State Trading Corporation of which the applicant was Chief store keeper. The Magistrate refused bail whereupon the applicant applied to the High Court.

Held: (1) “There can be little doubt that in all the three cases cited [Mohamed Alibhai v. R. ITLR 138; Abdallah Nassor v. R. ITLR 289; Bhagwanji Kakubhai v. R. ITLR 143] the offences on which each of the applicants had been held, though serious, were in no sense as serious as the offence for which the present applicant stands charged …………. It is clear from an intelligent reading of the judgments that each decision rested on its own peculiar facts.” (2) “The applicant was arrested only over a week ago and it could in my opinion be demanding the impossible to expect the police to have completed their investigations within a week ………. There are some cases and I believe the instant may be one in which an intelligent guess can be made that the applicant having regard to the nature of the case is likely to hamper the speedy conclusion of police investigations.” (3) [Citing R. v. Porter (1910) I. K. B. 369] “It is no less true here than it is in England that a person in the position of the applicant faced with such a serious charge of allegedly stealing Shs. 91,638/10 which may even grow larger as investigations progress will be greatly empted to abscond and therefore evade justice. I do not believe that the fact that a person does not possess any valid travel papers or documents will be much of a hindrance or obstacle to a person who is determined to flee the country.” (4) “Economic sabotage or whatever you may like to call it and defalcation of large sums of money from parastatal organizations is as much a ‘murder’ of these institutions as the killing of another man intentionally, in so far as the unbridled milking of their funds would surely kill them as functioning and viable instruments of positive Economic reconstruction” (5) application refused.