THE STATE vs. ATSU [1962]DLHC1726

Date	1962-06-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1726

OLLENNU J.

[1962]DLHC1726
																																						<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">&nbsp;ATSU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 477<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"> 19TH 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">

OLLENNU, J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>The defendant is charged on two counts, one possession of a forged
note contrary to section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960,1(1) and two uttering a
forged note contrary to section 17, subsection (1) of the Currency Act, 1960.
For possession under the Act as defined in section 21 thereof to constitute an
offence, the possessor must be proved to have knowledge that the note he
possessed is forged or he must be proved to have had the possession in such
circumstances that he must be presumed to be seised of knowledge that the
document is forged. The most important issue, therefore, in this case is
whether the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to know at the date he
obtained possession of the note or at any time while it remained in his
possession, that it is a forged note and whether he knew at the date he uttered
it to the bank official that it is forged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Whether or not a person is seised of any knowledge is a fact which
exists in his own mind, but it is not necessary for that person orally to
reveal the contents of his mind before other persons can know whether or not he
is seised of a particular knowledge. His actions, his behaviour and all the
circumstances surrounding the particular incident are enough to enable the
world at large to draw an inference as to whether or not he is seised of
particular knowledge, or whether or not he must be deemed to be seised of that
knowledge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this case, naturally, it has not been possible for the
prosecution to produce oral evidence or evidence of an eye witness that the
defendant knew that the note is forged. The prosecution have, however, asked
the court to look at all the circumstances of the case and to say or to draw
the inference that the defendant must have known that the note is forged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There being no other evidence on the point, I accept the evidence
of the defendant that he got the note from one woman or another as part of the
proceeds of the sale of his farm products. Having regard to the condition of
life of the defendant, I believe that he did not seriously examine the note at
the time it was given to him, to determine whether or not it was genuine. The
fact that when the defendant was sent to Accra with some money to buy goods, he
did not conceal this money among the sum of money given to him to purchase the
goods and did not, in fact, when he got to the bank tender that note in
exchange for coins, but definitely told the bank official that the note was
spoilt or damaged and he wanted another note in exchange for it, are some of
the matters which have made a very strong impression on my mind. I do not
believe that a person of the type of the defendant would go to the bank with
all the policemen and the security officers about and boldly tender the money,
making the representations which he made. If I had been satisfied that he is
the type of cute man, daring, prone to any clandestine criminal act, I would be
inclined to think he could go boldly to the bank and present the money and make
the representations as he did; but I am not satisfied that he is that type of
man. The note itself is such that it could easily deceive any person. I believe
that the defendant had this money without knowledge of its nature as a forged
note. I, therefore, agree with the opinion expressed by each of the assessors
and find the defendant not guilty on each of the two counts on which he stands
charged. The defendant is accordingly acquitted and discharged.<o:p></o:p>