AMOAKO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1961]DLSC581

Date	1961-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC581

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI J.S.C

APPIAH FOR V. OWUSU FOR THE APPELLANT

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

[1961]DLSC581
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>[1961] GLR 134

DATE: 3RD MARCH, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

J.
APPIAH FOR V. OWUSU FOR THE APPELLANT.

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

</div>

VAN LARE, SARKODEE-ADOO AND
AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

Van Lare J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant
in this case was a policeman who had in his custody and possession at all time
material to the charges preferred against him a cheque book belonging to the
Africa Insurance and Import Company. A complaint had been laid by the insurance
company concerning their missing cheque book which was recovered by the police
from a certain person concerning whom enquiries were proceeding. It was during
the course of these investigations that the appellant came into possession of
the cheque book. He used a leaf of this cheque book and gave it to a creditor
apparently in the hope of avoiding worries from him. It turned out that the
appellant in fact had no banking account. The very next day the appellant took
steps to prevent his said creditor from presenting the cheque he had made out
in his favour. Notwithstanding this warning the creditor presented the cheque
and was told that the drawer, that is the appellant, had no account at the bank.
The events led to the appellant being prosecuted and convicted for the offences
of stealing the cheque leaf, property of the insurance company, and of
defrauding by false pretences, i.e. that he, with intent to defraud his said
creditor, gave the creditor a cheque to cover the goods he had bought on
credit.

On appeal to the High Court the conviction on the charge of false
pretences was quashed, but the conviction on the charge of stealing the cheque
leaf on which he wrote out the cheque purporting to settle the outstanding debt
against him was confirmed. It is absolutely clear on the evidence that the
appellant had no fraudulent intent whatsoever in all his acts including using a
leaf from the cheque book he happened to be possessor of at the time in order
to ward off his said creditor to whom he purported to have made out a cheque in
settlement of the debt he had long owed. We are satisfied that there was never
any intent to defraud and the circumstances of the case clearly show that the
appellant had no intent of dishonest appropriation when he used someone else’s
cheque leaf.

The learned judge of the High Court erred in not considering the
main intent of the appellant. If he had done so he would naturally have felt
himself constrained also to find in favour of the appellant on the charge of
stealing the cheque leaf.

Under the circumstances as we find that there was no intention of
dishonest appropriation of the cheque leaf in respect of which the charge of
stealing had been preferred against the appellant, we quash the conviction
recorded on that charge against the appellant and enter an acquittal on the
first count also. The appeal is allowed; the appellant is accordingly
discharged on that count.

The sentence of one day’s imprisonment and fine of £G10 substituted
by the learned judge for that imposed by the trial senior magistrate is set
aside. If it has been paid it should be refunded to the appellant.