THE STATE vs. ATSU

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J. The defendant is charged on two counts, one possession of a forged note contrary to section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960,1(1) and two uttering a forged note contrary to section 17, subsection (1) of the Currency Act, 1960. For possession under the Act as defined in section 21 thereof to constitute an offence, the possessor must be proved to have knowledge that the note he possessed is forged or he must be proved to have had the possession in such circumstances that he must be presumed to be seised of knowledge that the document is forged. The most important issue, therefore, in this case is whether the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to know at the date he obtained possession of the note or at any time while it remained in his possession, that it is a forged note and whether he knew at the date he uttered it to the bank official that it is forged. Whether or not a person is seised of any knowledge is a fact which exists in his own mind, but it is not n...