COMMISSIONER OF POLICE vs. OSEI YAW AKOTO [1964]DLHC11122

Date	1964-03-16
Suit No.	[1964] GLR 231
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC11122

AKAINYAH J.

S. S. OKUNOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.

J. K. ESSIEN FOR B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLHC11122
																																						<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" >COMMISSIONER OF POLICE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OSEI YAW AKOTO<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;">

[1964] GLR 231&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
DATE: 16 MARCH,
1964<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>S. S. OKUNOR, STATE
ATTORNEY, FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.<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;">

J. K. ESSIEN FOR B. J. DA ROCHA
FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

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

<h2 align="center" style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT OF AKAINYAH
J.<o:p></o:p></h2>

</div>In
this application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the charge and
the acquittal of the accused by the
District Magistrate, Accra, following a submission by counsel for the accused
of no case to answer, the learned state attorney filed the following grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The ruling of the learned trial magistrate was unreasonable and cannot be supported
by the evidence.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;The learned trial magistrate wrongly refused to allow
the prosecuting state attorney to reply to the
legal submission of ‘no case
to answer’, made by the defence counsel.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel
abandoned the first ground of appeal and argued only the second. He seriously
contended that counsel for the
accused had no right to make the submission of no case to answer and that the
learned district magistrate erred in law by allowing
the submission to be made and refusing
to allow the prosecuting
counsel to reply to the submission. In his view the proper interpretation of
section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19601 is that
the court must decide whether or not, there is a
case to answer<o:p></o:p>Act
30 without any submission by counsel for the accused. He conceded however that
counsel for the prosecution has no
right of reply and submitted that, this is so, because the law did not make
provision for a submission of no
case to answer to be made. [His lordship here read the provisions of section
173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, as set out in the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p>With respect,
I do not agree with learned counsel’s narrow interpretation of section 173. A person
charged before the court is entitled as of right to make his defence. In
his own interest, it is his duty to make
it appear to that court, that no case has been made out against him</main>