ARMAH AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE [1961]DLSC613

Date	1961-03-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC613

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

A.G. HEWARD-MILLS FOR FIRST AND SECOND APPELLANTS

S.M. CODJOE FOR THE THIRD APPELLANT

K. DUA SAKYI

WITH HIM S. S. OKUNOR FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1961]DLSC613
																																						<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]

[1961] GLR 136

DATE: 3RD MARCH, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

A.G.
HEWARD-MILLS FOR FIRST AND SECOND APPELLANTS.

K.
DUA SAKYI, WITH HIM S. S. OKUNOR FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

</div>

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

</div>

&nbsp;

Sarkodee-Adoo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is
an appeal from convictions before Charles, J. sitting with the aid of assessors
at the Assizes holden at Accra on the 6th January, 1960. The
appellants, the first and second of whom are husband and wife, were all jointly
charged on two counts of housebreaking and stealing from the shop of Messrs.
Swiss African Trading Company, Limited, Accra, (hereinafter referred to as
S.A.T. Co. Ltd.), goods to the total value of £G1, 549 6s. 7d. the property of
the said company.

The facts briefly put are that during the night of the 29th
May, 1959, the shop of S.A.T. Co. Ltd., in Knutsford Avenue, Accra, was broken
into and goods stolen therefrom. Within the space of a few hours thereafter the
appellants were found in possession of a large quantity of goods very similar
to those stolen from the shop, and gave no reasonable explanation as to how
they came by them save a fantastic story that they were found at Takoradi.

The appeal principally involves a consideration of substantial
irregularities in the conduct of the trial. The record of proceedings shows
that at the close of the case for the prosecution Mr. Heward-Mills, counsel for
the first and second appellants, submitted as follows:

“There is no sufficient case made out against them for the court
to call on them to enter upon their defence. There is no evidence to show that
the goods tendered in evidence belong to S.A.T. Co. Ltd., or form part of the
property alleged to have been stolen from S.A.T. Co. Ltd. The only evidence
adduced is that the suitings and other materials are similar to those alleged
to have been stolen from S.A.T. Co. Ltd. There are no marks of identification
to show that the goods produced in court are the property of S.A.T. Co. Ltd. In
law nobody can be convicted of stealing any property unless it is first
established that the property mentioned in the indictment had been stolen.

At this stage, the learned trial judge informed Mr. Heward-Mills
that the court was of opinion that the prosecution had failed to identify those
goods as the property S.A.T. Co. Ltd. In doing so the learned trial judge
appears to have completely lost sight of, and thereby failed to consider, the
definition of stealing as provided by section 27 of the Criminal Code as
follows: “A person is guilty of stealing if he dishonestly appropriates a thing
of which he is not the owner.” We must point out that ownership in goods in a
charge of stealing is not an essential ingredient of that charge, as a person
may be properly convicted of stealing a thing or goods the property of an
unknown person.

Mr. Cudjoe, counsel for the third appellant, similarly submitted
that no prima facie case was made out against his client to answer.

Mr. Boison, Crown Counsel (as he then was) in reply submitted,
inter alia, that the first and second appellants were in possession of articles
similar to those recently stolen from S.A.T. Co. Ltd., and as they had not
given any explanation, a prima facie case had been made out against them; and
as to the third appellant that, as he was assisting in the disposal of the
goods, he knew or ought to have known that they had been stolen.

“By Court: Submissions of Mr. Heward-Mills overruled and Nos. 1
and 2 accused called to give a defence in respect of both counts. Court directs
assessors that on the evidence a prima facie case has not been made out against
No. 3 accused in respect of the 1st and 2nd&nbsp; counts but there is a prima facie case made
out against the No. 3 accused to answer a charge of receiving stolen goods
contrary to s.301 of Cap. 9. Court directs assessors to express an opinion that
No. 3 accused is not guilty on the 1st and 2nd counts.
The following is the opinion of the assessors:

Mr. Quist:-No. 3 accused not guilty on 1st and 2nd
Counts.

</main>