TETTEH ASAMADEY ALIAS OSAGYEFO AND ANOTHER vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1963]DLHC11126

Date	1963-11-07
Suit No.	[1963] 2 GLR 400
Citation No.	[1963]DLHC11126

SOWAH J.

P. A. ADJETEY AND NARTEY FOR THE APPELLANTS.

S. S. OKUNOR ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1963]DLHC11126
																																						<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" >TETTEH ASAMADEY
ALIAS OSAGYEFO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

[1963] 2 GLR 400 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
7TH NOVEMBER, 1963<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>P. A. ADJETEY AND NARTEY FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

S. S. OKUNOR,
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>&nbsp;<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">JUDGMENT OF SOWAH
J.<o:p></o:p></h2>The appellants
were on the 20th June, 1963, each convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment for pretending to be public officers and
six months imprisonment for defrauding one Salifu Dagomba, the sentences
to run consecutively in the two
cases.<o:p></o:p>Unfortunately,
the learned magistrate did not record the facts given by the prosecution after
the plea of guilty, and which facts must have influenced him to impose such severe sentences. I am of the opinion
that it is incumbent upon a magistrate to record the facts of the
offence as given by the prosecution after a plea
of guilty, because it is on those facts that the severity or otherwise of
sentence depends. Furthermore a
convicted person entitled to appeal against his sentence even though he had
entered a plea of guilty. An appellate court can only properly deal with such an appeal when the facts have been recorded.<o:p></o:p>In
this case however the facts of the case sufficiently show up in the two counts.
In the first case, the appellants
were in the first count charged with pretending to be public officers who under
such colour arrested one Salifu
Dagomba. The second count shows that the pretence was assumed in order to
defraud the said Salifu Dagomba on the sum
of £G2.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the appellants submitted that in such a case the procedure to be followed
in imposing sentence is outlined in sections 302 and
303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960.1 In my view where a person does several acts each of which is
an offence in itself, but where the acts were done in the execution of one grand design, the
prosecution could elect to charge the accused person with only the main act which is the end result of the
several criminal acts, and if the accused is convicted the court is entitled to have regard to the other acts
in imposing sentence. Where, however, the prosecution elects to charge the person with the several acts in the same indictment
or summons,<sp</main>