About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAFSHC 90
|
|
S v Vusi (06/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 90 (29 April 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
Number : 06/2015
In the
review between:
THE
STATE
and
MPEYI
TRESSURE VUSI
CORUM:
WILLIAMS, AJ
et
VAN ZYL, J
JUDGMENT
BY:
WILLIAMS, AJ
DELIVERED
ON:
29 APRIL 2015
[1] This
matter came before me on automatic review in terms of section 302
read with section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
51 of 1977,
(“the CPA”). The accused was charged in the Bloemfontein
Magistrate’s Court on 15 October 2014 on
a charge of dealing in
an undesirable dependence producing substance to wit dagga in terms
of the
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992
. The alternative
charge was being in possession thereof.
[2] The
accused pleaded guilty to the main charge. He was thereupon convicted
and sentenced to a fine of R4 000,00 (FOUR THOUSAND
RANDS) or 8
months’ (EIGHT MONTHS’) imprisonment which sentence was
wholly suspended for a period of five years on
condition that the
accused is not convicted of contravention of the provisions of
section 5(b)
of Act 140 of 1992 during the period of suspension. In
terms of section 5 of the said Act, the dagga was forfeited to the
State.
[3] A query
was directed to the presiding officer by Reinders, AJ, as he was of
the view that the record might be incomplete. He
was neither
satisfied that the accused had pleaded guilty in terms of section 112
(1)(a) of the CPA, as he was not questioned by
the Magistrate in
terms of section 112(1)(b) of the CPA. Reinders, AJ further queried
whether the sentence was competent with reference
to
S v Tolmay
1980(1) SA 182 NL
.
[4] The
presiding officer supplied this court with his comments and conceded
that his questions did not cover all the essential
elements to
sustain the conviction.
[5]
ORDER:
On the presiding officer’s
request, the following orders are made:
1.
The
entire proceedings are set aside.
2.
The matter is remitted to the Magistrate’s
Court, Bloemfontein for a trial
de novo
.
3.
The accused is to be informed about the
alteration of his conviction.
__________________
A.
WILLIAMS, AJ
I
concur:
______________
C. VAN ZYL, J