Shabani Mbunda v. R., Crim. App. 466-D-68, 23/10/68, Biron J.

Shabani Mbunda v. R., Crim. App. 466-D-68, 23/10/68, Biron J.

The accused, a clerk for the Minister of Education, prepared and signed three purchase orders for petrol and delivered all of them at various times to a local merchant. He subsequently picked up one of the orders, but never called for the others. He was authorized to make out such orders for his superiors’ signatures, but not to sign them himself. The accused was convicted of stealing the petrol obtained, stealing the purchase order forms (which he had obtained with-out authority from the District Education office while on leave), and of attempting to steal the petrol not called for. He was acquitted on charges of making a false document without authority and uttering a false document. He was sentenced to two years and 24 strokes on the stealing convictions, and to six months for attempted stealing, all sentences concurrent. The accused was a first offender

Held: (1) The acquittals were proper. The present charges seem to be the first of their kind in the courts of Tanzania. “I am ….. inclined to agree …… that if the making of these local purchase orders was with intent to steal, that would not constitute the offence. …….” If the other charges had been for obtaining and attempting to obtain by false pretences, the gist of the charges relating to the documents would have been “intent to defraud”, which is required for a conviction of making or uttering false documents.

            (2) The stealing charges involving the petrol should have been charges of obtaining and attempting to obtain by false pretences, the “property in the petrol” having been obtained or sought with the merchant’s consent, fraudulently secured. Conviction substituted accordingly.

            (3) Only the conviction for stealing Government purchase orders remains, among the scheduled-offence convictions. The amount is less than Shs. 100/-, and accused is a first offender. The record contains sufficient material for the High Court to consider “special circumstance, including accused’s statement that ‘he had a wife and two children, as well as his brothers, dependent on him……” Sentence reduced to one year on each conviction, to run concurrently.