S v Tseki and Another (1174/2006) [2007] ZAFSHC 10 (8 February 2007)

45 Reportability
Criminal Law

Brief Summary

Criminal Law — Sentencing — Improper sentence under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act — Accused convicted of dealing in cannabis — Original sentence of fine or imprisonment deemed improper due to magistrate's misinterpretation of section 17(e) of the Act — Sentence set aside and matter remitted for fresh sentencing.

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
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZAFSHC 10
|

|

S v Tseki and Another (1174/2006) [2007] ZAFSHC 10 (8 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No.: 1174/2006
In the review between:
THE
STATE
and
MAHAPA
TSEKI
Accused No. 1
DIRA
MAKOKO
Accused No. 2
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
CILLIé, J
et
EBRAHIM, J
JUDGEMENT:
EBRAHIM, J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
1 MARCH 2007
_____________________________________________________
[1] The two accused in
this matter were convicted of dealing in a dependence producing
substance to wit cannabis and convicted of
contravening
section 5(b)
of the
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act No. 140 of 1992
. The quantity
involved was 106 kg. Both accused were sentenced to pay a fine of R2
500,00 or to undergo imprisonment for a period
of 12 months; R500,00
or 3 (three) months imprisonment was suspended for a period of 3
(three) years on condition the accused were
not again convicted of
contravention of
section 4(b)
of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the
period of suspension.
[2] The matter was placed
before me by way of ordinary review and I addressed a query to the
magistrate calling for reasons for the
sentence imposed, in light of
the fact that
section 17(e)
of the
Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act
1992
provided for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed for such a
conviction.
[3] The learned
magistrate graciously accepted that he had misconceived the
provisions of
section 17(e)
of the said Act and that the sentence was
accordingly improper. In light of this concession the sentence
aforesaid is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the learned
magistrate for sentencing afresh.
_____________
S.
EBRAHIM, J
I
concur.
____________
C.B. CILLIé, J
/sp