REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 160 OF 2016 JACKLINE WANJA................. APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC............................RESPONDENT 18/01/2017 Before: Muchemi, J. RULING 1. I have perused this file brought to me for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was convicted of the offence of alcoholic drinks contrary to Section 27(1) (b) as read with Section 27(4) of the Alcoholic Drinks Act. She had 15 litres of traditional liquor otherwise known as “machore”. She was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment. 2. In her application she outlines her grounds for review of sentence stating that she has served four (4) months imprisonment and that she has undergone counselling and reformed. Further that she is a single mother of five children. She pleads for a suspended sentence for the remaining period. 3. Section 362 of the CPC addresses issues of illegality, irregularity or mistake by the trial court and empowers this court to correct them in way of revision. 4. The applicant pleaded not guilty, evidence was taken, defence heard and she was convicted after full hearing. Section 27 provides for a fine not exceeding Shs. 2 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five (5) years. 5. The applicant was not a first offender. She had three previous convictions within a period of 12 months. This puts her in the category of habitual offenders which the court has a duty to discourage by meting out deterrent sentences. The sentence of three years imposed was within the law. 6. The magistrate did not make any mistake or commit any illegality under Section 362 of the CPC for this court to review. 7. The application is accordingly dismissed. 8. The F. MUCHEMI JUDGE 18/01/2017 ruling to be served on the applicant.
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.