(CRIMINAL REVISION)

SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. MOHAMED OSMAN AMER

AC.CR.REV-138-1966

Principles

·  Criminal Procedure—Proceedings concerning pensionable officials—Legal Regulations. . 1929 part 1l—It is not mandatry to try pensionable officials by Major court when accused of offences punishable with imprisonment

The legal Regulations 1929, part 11. Which direct that pensionable o&ials must be trkd by Major Court when accuseed of offene punishable with mprisonmerit, have no effect of baw to make sucn direction mandatory.

Judgment

Advocate: Abdel Halim El Tahir for the accused

Mubarak El Madani J. July 12, 1966: —Mohamed Osman Amer. a senior Forests Officer ot was on May 1, 1966 convicted by Resident Magistrate Sennar under Sudan Penal Code, SS. 128 and 163 (in respect of a bribe of £S.10.000m/ms. and refusal to deliver too sacks 01 charcoal to one Ahmed Tayib El Asma P.W.2), and sentenced respectively to imprisonment for six months and for seven days, sentences to run concurrently. The court ordered that the £S.io.ooom/ms. note received by the police from the accused be returned to informant. The Acting Province Judge, Blue Nile Circuit, confirmed finding, sentence and order.

On application by advocate Abdel Halim El Tahir on behalf of accused I see no reason to intervene.

The two offences are sufficiently proved. The trial magistrate fully discussed all the relevant points in his judgment. The learned Acting Province Judge carefully considered the appeal submitted to him and his elaborate note dealt with all the matters raised before him, the trial court and in the application to the Chief Justice. There is nothing left for me to comment on. As to the sentence, I agree entirely with the views stated in respect of it by both the trial magistrate and the Acting Province Judge. Offences of bribery must be strictly proved. Once proved they must be dealt with firmly and adequately.

The Legal Regulations, 1929, Part II, provides that pensionable officials accused of ofiences in respect of which they may be sentenced to imprison ment shall, as a rule, be tried by Major Court. The accused in this case is a pensionable officiaL there is no provision in law, which makes it mandatory that he must be tried by Major Court. The offences are sufficiently proved and the sentences are adequate. The accused’s case has never been prejudiced either at the hearing or on appeal. I therefore think that there is not any ground to justify the quashing of these pro ceedings and ordering trial by Major Court. This may result in putting the accused again and unnecessarily in a bad state of mental strain, which, in my view, is not justifled under all the circumstances.