THE STATE vs. AGYEKUM AND AMOFA [1962]DLHC1723

Date	1962-06-05
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1723

DJABANOR J.

[1962]DLHC1723
																																						<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">THE STATE <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">AGYEKUM AND AMOFA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 442<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 5TH JUNE, 1962.<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">

<o:p>&nbsp;</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">

DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>In this case the two accused persons stand charged with the
offences of falsification of accounts (ie. first accused alone), conspiracy and
stealing. The first accused was secretary and the second accused treasurer, of
the Bomfa Co-operative Society. The duty of the first accused as secretary was
to buy cocoa for the society from the members of the society, give the said
members advances against which they were to supply cocoa to the society, keep
the books of the society and pay out their expenses. The money supplied for
this work was kept jointly by the secretary and the honorary treasurer in the
society’s safe. The secretary keeps one key and the treasurer too keeps one key
so that money could not normally be taken out unless both of them, or their
representatives, were present. When the books were audited it was found that
the society was over £G7,000 short — in fact £G7,511 17s. 11d. They were
therefore jointly charged with conspiring to steal that money, and also with
stealing it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first charge is against the first accused alone; that on the
7th June, 1960, at Bomfa, with intent to facilitate the commission of the crime
of stealing he omitted to make a full and true entry in the cash book of the
said society in respect of the amount of £G1,000 received from the Ashanti Akim
Co-operative Union, which he was bound to enter therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The prosecution’s case is that the first accused received this
amount of £G1,000 in respect of this society but with intent to facilitate the
crime of stealing he failed to enter it into the cash book on that day, as he
was bound to do. Mr. Amoateng was the secretary of the Ashanti Akim Union at
the relevant period and he was the one who should pay this £G1,000 to the first
accused and second accused. According to his evidence when he gave out money to
these people the treasurer should sign on his own receipt book, and the secretary
(the first accused) should also at the same time issue him with a receipt. He
was emphatic that these two receipts should be executed and given to him before
he gave out the money. In the case of this charge concerning the £G1,000 the
union’s receipt No. 31893, dated the 7th June, 1960, was not signed by the
first accused; the signatures are different, and no secretary’s receipt was
given to the union secretary on that date. In fact no receipt was given to the
secretary at all until by the order of the auditor, one (No. 47) was made out
on 19th August, 1961. When the first accused therefore denied that he received
that money, there is every reason for believing that he may be right. In any
case he definitely did not receive that money on the 7th June, 1960, and he
could not therefore have failed in his duty if he did not make a relevant entry
of the same. The first charge against the first accused must therefore fail.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the second count the accused is charged with falsification of
accounts in respect of £G1,500 which he similarly failed to enter into his
books on the 9th September, 1960. There is no denial that the first accused is
the paid secretary of the Bomfa Co-operative Society and that he keeps the
books of the said society. The first thing that the prosecution would have to
prove is that the first accused received this amount of £G1,500 on the 9th
September, 1960, and that he did not enter that amount in his books; then they
will have to prove that it is the duty of the accused to make the entries on
that same day; that he failed to make the entry; and that he did so with intent
to facilitate the commission of the crime of stealing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is no dispute that the first accused received the £G1,500
together with the second accused on the 9th September, 1960. He himself
admitted it, and it is shown in the Cocoa Advances Book that he had signed a
receipt for it. But with regard to the question whether or not it is the duty
of the first accused person to make the entry of this receipt in his cash book
on the same day there is singularly no evidence. There is no evidence by
anybody who could describe himself as his employer to the effect that it is the
duty of the accused to make the entry on the date of receipt. The only evidence
as to the duties of the first accused is given by one of the auditors.
According to him it is the duty of the first accused to make entries of all
such transactions in his books. He did not say that the entry must be made the
same day. If he had said so, I would not have believed him. What I am prepared
to believe is that it is the duty of the first accused to make an entry as soon
as practicable. It must be remembered that the first accused received the money
from Konongo and then brought it home to Bom</main>