MAHAMADU LAGOS vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1961]DLSC5414

Date	1961-03-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC5414

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI J.S.C.

B. GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANT

K. DUA SAKYI FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1961]DLSC5414
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">MAHAMADU LAGOS <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 181&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0"> 24TH MARCH, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

B.
GAISIE FOR THE APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE JSC, SARKODEE-ADOO
JSC, AKIWUMI J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN
LARE, J.S.C<o:p></o:p>Van Lare J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant
was convicted and sentenced to two years I.H.L. for the offence of being found
by night in possession of house-breaking implements, to wit: a pair of large
shears and a long crow bar, without lawful excuse. The appellant owns a taxi,
which he drives himself and plies for hire. This vehicle was hired by certain
passengers to go to Sekondi, which they reached at night. The vehicle parked by
the roadside while the appellant and his passengers refreshed themselves. The
police came on the scene, whereupon the passengers took to their heels and
escaped arrest. The policemen said that the appellant did not attempt to run
away but they nevertheless detained him in view of the unexpected escape of the
passengers of the vehicle. Upon a search of the vehicle the passengers’ luggage
was found in the boot of the car and underneath the seat at the back were found
the implements complained of. It is not in dispute that the implements are
adapted for the purpose of house-breaking. The appellant expressed his surprise
at finding in his taxi such implements. This is confirmed by the police witness
for the prosecution. The explanation of the appellant of the presence of these
implements in his taxi was that they must have been placed there by the
passengers who had, in the view of the policemen, suddenly run away. The
appellant denied knowledge of the presence of the implements in his taxi and
thereby denied legal possession of them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial district magistrate expressed the view that he was
satisfied that the prisoner knew about the presence of these implements. He
gave no reasons and we can find no satisfactory evidence from which such
inference could be drawn and therefore think that the district magistrate erred
in such a finding. We are also of opinion that had the trial magistrate fully
considered the explanation offered by the prisoner when he stated to the
police, at the earliest opportunity, that the passengers must have planted the
implements in the taxi without his knowledge and in his absence visiting the
lavatory, his finding would most probably have been different. Further, we find
that the trial district magistrate simply dismissed the explanation of the
prisoner by saying he did not believe him. This we think is a case in which it
was the duty of the trial district magistrate to have considered whether the
explanation of the prisoner could reasonably be true. It appears obvious to us
that the prisoner’s explanation of the presence of the implements could
reasonably be true and on that footing the verdict should have been one of not
guilty - see Regina v. Abisa Grunshie.1(1)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On appeal to the learned circuit judge, the appellant’s appeal was
summarily dismissed as of no merit. In this procedure he erred, for as the
prisoner was in custody, it was his duty to give opportunity for the
appellant’s advocate to be heard, as provided by section 331 of Cap. 10 - then
applicable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view of what we have indicated it is obvious that the learned
circuit judge on appeal omitted to consider the points we have discussed in
this judgment and erred in dismissing the appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>It is from the decision of the
circuit judge that this appeal comes before us, and we have no alternative, for
the grounds indicated, but to allow the appeal. The appeal is accordingly
allowed, conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. The appellant is
acquitted and discharged.<o:p></o:p>