ASAMOAH vs. THE STATE [1962]DLSC1357

Date	1962-12-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1357

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

CRABBE JSC

BLAYJ.S.C.

D.G. E. BROOKMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

C.E. L. HEWLETT SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLSC1357
																																						<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:#00B0F0">ASAMOAH<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:#00B0F0">&nbsp;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:#00B0F0">THE STATE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962]
2 GLR 207<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: 21ST DECEMBER, 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">

D.G.
E. BROOKMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

C.E.
L. HEWLETT SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

SARKODEE-ADOO, CRABBE AND
BLAY, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CRABBE
J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Crabbe J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. In this appeal
the substantial question that the court had to determine was whether on the
proved facts the appellant knew at the material times that the currency notes
which he was charged with possessing and uttering were forged.<o:p></o:p>The following facts of the case are taken from the judgment of the
trial judge:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows: On Friday,
23rd March, 1961 at about 6 p.m. the accused went to Kwapanin village to buy
some kente cloths. He is a weaver himself. He went to Kofi Peprah and Kwabena
Mensah in their house and asked to buy these cloths. Kofi Peprah showed him
what he had and they bargained. According to the prosecution the price agreed
upon for the three kente cloths was £G51. Accused says it was £G52 — Kwabena
Mensah was present with Peprah in the room when this transaction took place.
According to the prosecution after the accused had selected the three cloths he
was allowed to take them away and come and pay later. Peprah and Mensah knew
accused before this. Accused took the cloths away and deposited them with his
uncle Kofi Krah (P.W.5) in the village for safe-keeping. Later accused went
back to Peprah’s house into his room and in the presence of Mensah accused
counted fifty-one pound notes and gave them to Peprah. Peprah counted them
again but on examining one of them he discovered that it was counterfeit. He
there and then in the room and in the presence of both the accused and Kwabena
Mensah told the accused that the money was counterfeit and so accused should
take it back and return his cloths to him. Accused insisted that the notes were
genuine and refused to give back the cloths to Peprah. At this stage accused
left them in the room. Peprah and Kwabena Mensah followed him out and went to
accused’s uncle’s house to report the matter to him. Although they Peprah and
Kwabena Mensah got there accused had not arrived. Peprah and Kwabena Mensah
then reported to the uncle that his nephew Kwame Asamoah bought cloths from him
and paid him with counterfeit notes, and that they had come to take back their
cloth and give back his counterfeit notes to him. The uncle sent for the
accused and put the matter before him. But again the accused insisted that what
he used in paying for the cloths was genuine money. The matter was therefore
reported to the town committee, and later accused and the complainants were
taken to the Offinso police station.”<o:p></o:p>Section 18 of the Currency Act, 1960,1(1) which makes the
possession of a forged note an offence reads as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Any person, who, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof
whereof shall lie on him, purchases or receives from any person, or has in his
custody or possession, a forged note, knowing the same to be forged commits an
offence and shall be guilty of a second degree felony.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This section clearly provides that where a person is charged with
the offence it is essential that the prosecution must prove that the accused
knew that he had in his possession the forged note which is the subject matter
of the charge. It is not necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence of
actual knowledge; it is sufficient if there is evidence from which knowledge of
the accused may be justifiably inferred. It is only when such evidence has been
led by the prosecution that “the onus lies upon the accused to prove lawful
authority or excuse for his possession, a burden it would be impossible for him
to discharge unless it be established that he had knowledge of the possession,”
per Verity C.J. in R. v. Ogba Agu.2(2)<o:p></o:p>At the trial</main>