AMARTEY vs. THE STATE [1964]DLSC1865

Date	1964-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1865

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

R. J. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JNR. PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1865
																																						<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" >AMARTEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 256<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
1 MAY 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

I. AMOO-LAMPTEY FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. J. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, JNR., PRINCIPAL 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, ACOLATSE AND APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. We allowed the appeal in this case
on 3 April 1964 after hearing the submissions of counsel, and now proceed to
give our reasons.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was convicted by the circuit court judge, Accra, sitting with
assessors, upon an indictment charging her with possessing narcotics contrary
to section 47 (1) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961,1 and was sentenced to
five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. She appealed against her conviction on
four grounds grouped into three which may be summarised as follows: (1) The
learned circuit court judge failed to direct himself on the ingredients of the
charge preferred against the appellant, and consequently erred in holding that
the charge was proved; (2) The circuit court judge failed to direct himself and
the assessors on the evidence of the fourth prosecution witness, and in
particular failed to give proper consideration to the explanation of the
appellant that the parcel found in her room was given to her by the said fourth
prosecution witness for safe keeping; and (3) The circuit court judge failed to
direct himself on the issue of the possession required by law to sustain the
charge.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
prosecution arose in the following circumstances: Police searched the house of
the appellant under a warrant between 6.30 a.m. and 7 a.m. on 27 October 1961
and found under a bed in her room a parcel “neatly wrapped up in a paper” and
enclosed in a pillow case. The police broke open the paper and found it contained
some plant material. This when examined by the senior government chemist on 13
June 1962, i.e. some eight months later, was described as being “mainly stems
and now [the 13 June 1962] too tough owing to insufficient dryness.” When
questioned as to how she came by the parcel, the appellant explained that it
was brought to her for safe keeping the evening before the morning of the search
by a former boy friend of hers, one Tijani Sani, the fourth prosecution
witness. The appellant and other women were arrested and taken to the police
station in consequence of this parcel in question and of other articles with
which the appellant is not concerned. The man Tijani Sani arrived at the police
station soon after the appellant and the other women arrived there in custody,
and, according to him, he was asked by the police to bail the appellant and the
other women then in police custody.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant did not deny that the parcel was found in her room; the explanation
she gave to the police and which she maintained throughout her defence was that
the parcel was given to her by the fourth prosecution witness for safe keeping,
and that it was in such a condition that until the police tore it open she did
not know, and could not have known, what its contents were.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
the first ground of appeal as summarised above, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that it is an essential ingredient of section 47 (1) of the
Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961, under which the charge was laid, that possession
of Indian hemp can only be an offence if the Indian hemp is in a condition
“prepared for smoking,” and that in compliance with the terms of the said
section 47 (1), the particulars of the offence on the bill of indictment
alleged that the appellant “had in her possession without lawful authority a
quantity of Indian hemp prepared for smoking.” Learned principal state attorney
for the respondent conceded the point made on behalf of the appellant and did
not seek to support the conviction on this point. The line taken by the principal
state attorney is, in our view, very proper.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
date the charge was preferred against the appellant and up to the date of her
conviction, section 47 (1) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961, read 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">“No
person shall have in his possession without lawful exc</main>