[1965]DLSC1778 • November 23, 1965 • Supreme Court •
ANTOH vs. THE STATE
The appellant was convicted by the High Court, Sunyani, for possessing forged Ghana currency notes contrary to section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960. Police officers, acting on a search warrant, searched his person, shop and adjoining room but found nothing incriminating. As they were leaving, a constable outside pointed to a plastic bag protruding from mud about a yard from the store entrance; the appellant pulled it out on instruction, and it contained 31 forged Ghana one-pound notes. The appellant denied knowledge of the notes. The prosecution relied principally on an alleged caution statement, exhibit A, said to have been made by the appellant in custody, in which he allegedly admitted that one Kofi Mensah brought him the bag and that he buried it after discovering the notes were forged. The appellant denied making any such admission and contended that the investigating sergeant had converted his denial into an incriminating statement. Portion of judgment: “The appellant was convicted... of the offence of possessing forged Ghana currency notes...”; “There the constable pointed to the ground at a plastic bag protruding from the mud...”; “In that statement the appellant is alleged to have said...”; “The appellant on the other hand denied making any such statement...”
read moreJUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C. Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the High Court, Sunyani, of the offence of possessing forged Ghana currency notes contrary to section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960.1 The following facts found by the trial judge axe not in dispute. Acting upon information received, five policemen, including a sergeant, armed with a search warrant, went to search the premises of the appellant; the premises consisted of a shop and an adjoining living room. The appellant was not in when the party arrived at his premises so they remained outside the shop until he returned; three of the policemen then entered the building with the appellant, while the other two remained outside. A thorough search was conducted of the person of the appellant, his shop and his living room, but nothing incriminating was found. Just before the search party left the room of the appellant one of the two constables outside the building called upon the ...