COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. TUNDAY LAGOS [1962]DLSC1416

Date	1962-02-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1416

VAN LARE JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.

K. NARAYAN WITH HIM H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE APPELLANT.

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).

[1962]DLSC1416
																																						<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">COMMISSIONER OF POLICE <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">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">TUNDAY LAGOS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 127<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"> 23RD FEBRUARY, 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">

K.
NARAYAN WITH HIM H. P. SWANIKER FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

P.
A. ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).<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">

VAN LARE, SARKODEE-ADOO AND ADUMUA-BOSSMAN,
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN
LARE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Van Lare, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The events
leading to the arrest and trial of the appellant were that during the period
March to November, 1960, a number of thefts of Post Office copper wire was
reported to the police. Some copper wires were cut down from telephone lines to
various towns such as Accra and Takoradi, and the estimated loss therefrom was
given as £G10,000 from January to December, 1960. On the 17th November, 1960, the
police in Accra searched the premises of the appellant, a scrap metal dealer,
and discovered a small quantity of certain wires believed to be property of the
Ghana Government valued at about £G2 10s. together with other wires which could
not be identified but were suspected to be government property or genuine
scrap.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant was charged before the Circuit Court, Accra,
presided over by Judge Jiagge on the 17th March, 1961, in respect of the
articles found in his possession on two counts. The first count charged him
with stealing some of the copper wires and the second count with being in
unlawful possession of the remaining articles including copper and red wires,
quantity of water equipment spares, and a quantity of lead. The trial proceeded
summarily and all the articles were exhibited and marked exhibit Al to A16. We
found ourselves unable to ascertain the nature of the exhibits so marked, or
their identity in relation to the charges, and the position became more
complicated by the witnesses simply referring to the exhibit numbers and not by
the articles as described in the charges. Confusion became worse when the
exhibits came to be sub-marked, e.g. A1A to J; A3A, B, C, etc. The trial
proceeded with much apparent confusion with regard to the exhibits and it must
have appeared to the court that the charges were defective, and that some
alteration should be permitted in order to regularise the position. We refer to
the judge’s minute made at a certain stage, during the case for the prosecution
in the following terms:<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">“Prosecution continues. C.O.P. applies to amend charge and
substitute stealing for unlawful possession in respect of Exhibits A3c, A8b and
A5b. Amendment read to accused. No objection. Amendment granted”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The charges were laid under the Criminal Code1(1), and the
Criminal Procedure Code2(2) was applicable, section 172 (1) of which was 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">“Where, at any stage of a summary trial before the close of the
case for the prosecution, it appears to the Court that the charge is defective,
either in substance or form the Court may make such order for the alteration of
the charge either by way of amendment of the charge or by the substitution or
addition of a new charge as the court thinks necessary to meet the
circumstances of the case:<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">“Provided that, where the charge is altered as aforesaid, the
Court shall thereupon call upon the accused person to plead to the altered
charge”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the case before us it did not appear that the appellant was
called upon to plead to the altered charge. There is also nothing to indicate
the amendment which was supposed to have been made. Our enquiry by calling for
the original record book and also the original charge sheet could not help; we
instead discovered that there was a substitution of another charge sheet not
showing the two counts as amended but rather disclosing three counts, that is
to say, two counts of stealing and one of unlawful possession in respect of the
same articles.<o:p></o:p>