'
1. Ruth Muunda was charged with being in possession of cannabis ( Bhang) contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances Contrary Act NO. 4 of 1994.
Particulars are that on the 5th day of September, 2024 at Mwaani Village, Mwaani Location in Makueni Country jointly with another was found in possession of cannabis (bhang) to wit 2 kgs and 400 grams valued at Kshs. 12,000 which was not medically prepared.
2. She and her co accused denied the charge.
3. Matter was heard and determined - and the court found each of them guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve 1year imprisonment on 28/3/2005.
4. The date of arrest is 8/9/2024.
5. Ruth filed an application for revision of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the grounds:-
a) That the applicant was charged with the offense of being in possession of cannabis contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances control act No. 4 of 1994 vide criminal case No. 470 of 2024 at Kilungu Law Court.
b) That the applicant pleaded not guilty of the charge and sentenced to serve 12 months after full trial.
c) That the learnt magistrate failed to consider the period spent in custody prior to conviction which was 6 months and 19 days under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentencing policy guidelines paragraph 7.10.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn on 8/4/2025.
7. She reiterates the ground for the application.
8. The only issue is whether the application has merit.
9. When the court sentenced the applicant the court stated:-
The accused person having been convicted of the offence of being in possession of cannabis sativa contrary to Section 3(1) as read with Section 3(2) (a) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act are hereby sentenced to 12 months in prison. The quantity of the cannabis was too much to convince the court that it was for one’s own consumption.
10. I have looked at the sentence - and the charge sheet - up to the time of conviction and sentence applicant was in custody - The court was under mandatory duty to take into account the period the applicant spent in custody.
11. In the sentence - the trial court has not stated that it took into account the said period of time.
12. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code States; provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence ,been held in custody, the sentence shall take into account of the period spent in custody.
13. In the circumstances - I find that the trial court did not indicate that it had complied with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
14. I allow the application - and considering the period the applicant was in custody - the sentence is deemed as served, the applicant be set at liberty unless otherwise legally held.
Dated, signed and delivered this 2nd October 2025
Mumbua T Matheka J
Applicant Present in Open Court
Mr. Kazungu for State
CA Chrispol
'
1. Ruth Muunda was charged with being in possession of cannabis ( Bhang) contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances Contrary Act NO. 4 of 1994.
Particulars are that on the 5th day of September, 2024 at Mwaani Village, Mwaani Location in Makueni Country jointly with another was found in possession of cannabis (bhang) to wit 2 kgs and 400 grams valued at Kshs. 12,000 which was not medically prepared.
2. She and her co accused denied the charge.
3. Matter was heard and determined - and the court found each of them guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve 1year imprisonment on 28/3/2005.
4. The date of arrest is 8/9/2024.
5. Ruth filed an application for revision of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the grounds:-
a) That the applicant was charged with the offense of being in possession of cannabis contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances control act No. 4 of 1994 vide criminal case No. 470 of 2024 at Kilungu Law Court.
b) That the applicant pleaded not guilty of the charge and sentenced to serve 12 months after full trial.
c) That the learnt magistrate failed to consider the period spent in custody prior to conviction which was 6 months and 19 days under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentencing policy guidelines paragraph 7.10.
6. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn on 8/4/2025.
7. She reiterates the ground for the application.
8. The only issue is whether the application has merit.
9. When the court sentenced the applicant the court stated:-
The accused person having been convicted of the offence of being in possession of cannabis sativa contrary to Section 3(1) as read with Section 3(2) (a) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act are hereby sentenced to 12 months in prison. The quantity of the cannabis was too much to convince the court that it was for one’s own consumption.
10. I have looked at the sentence - and the charge sheet - up to the time of conviction and sentence applicant was in custody - The court was under mandatory duty to take into account the period the applicant spent in custody.
11. In the sentence - the trial court has not stated that it took into account the said period of time.
12. The proviso to section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code States; provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence ,been held in custody, the sentence shall take into account of the period spent in custody.
13. In the circumstances - I find that the trial court did not indicate that it had complied with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
14. I allow the application - and considering the period the applicant was in custody - the sentence is deemed as served, the applicant be set at liberty unless otherwise legally held.
Dated, signed and delivered this 2nd October 2025
Mumbua T Matheka J
Applicant Present in Open Court
Mr. Kazungu for State
CA Chrispol
'