David Murithi v Republic [2019] KEHC 10843 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT CHUKA

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.15 OF 2017

DAVID MURITHI.......APPLICANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC.............RESPONDENT

(From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 458 of 2017 of the Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Marimanti).

R U L I N G

1. DAVID MURITHI, the applicant herein, was convicted of the offence of dealing in an alcoholic drink without a licence contrary to Section 7(1) as read with Section 62 of the Alcoholic Drink Control Act No.4 of  2010.

The particulars of the offence were that on 20th October, 2017 at  Gitunguri market in Tharaka South Sub-County within Tharaka Nithi County, the  applicant was found dealing in alcoholic drink namely Mugacha 20 litres without a licence in contravention of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No.4 of 2010.  The applicant pleaded guilty and upon conviction he was sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment without an option of fine.  The trial court in  sentencing the applicant noted that the applicant was a repeat offender and that he kept on hiding/camouflaging his identity to perpetrate crimes.  He has now vide Notice of Motion dated 24th November 2017 applied for review asking for leniency from this court.

2. This court did call for the lower court file for purposes of satisfying myself  on the correctness, legality and propriety of the proceedings and sentence passed against the applicant by the trial court.  After perusing through the  proceedings and the charge that faced the applicant I am satisfied that the proceedings, conviction and sentence meted out was legal, proper and correct.

3. The basis of my findings is that the provisions of Section 62 of the Alcoholic Drinks Control Act No. 4 of 2010 provides for a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment or Kshs.500,000 or both for the sort of offence committed by the applicant.  I have perused through the reasons     given by the learned  trial magistrate for meting out the punitive and deterrent sentence and I am satisfied that the reasons given are well grounded. Apart from the prevalence of the vice in the Area, the applicant was a repeat offender.

This court directed for a social inquiry to be conducted on the applicant and the findings contained in the report dated 23rd November, 2018 are in tandem with the findings of the trial court.  The  applicant is an habitual offender and has been  using pseudo names with the view to evading justice for long.  He certainly requires time in a reform facility to transform and  reflect on his past activities which have found him in the wrong side of the law.

In the premises, this court finds no merit in the application dated 24th  November, 2017.  The same is disallowed for aforestated reasons.

Dated, signed and delivered at Chuka this 28th day of January, 2019.

R.K. LIMO

JUDGE

28/1/2019

Ruling signed, dated and delivered in the open court in presence of the applicant in person and Momanyi for State.

R.K. LIMO

JUDGE

28/1/2019