RABBLES vs. THE STATE [1964]DLSC1949

Date	1964-11-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1949

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

J. N. K. TAYLOR SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1949
																																						<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" >RABBLES<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 580<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:
6 NOVEMBER 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">

APPELLANT IN PERSON.<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 SIRIBOE 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. The appellant was tried by Sowah J.
sitting with assessors. The indictment charged him with three counts, namely
(1) forgery, (2) uttering a forged document and (3) stealing. The learned judge
convicted him on the counts of forgery and uttering a forged document, and by
virtue of the provisions of section 136 of the Criminal Code, 1960,1 and
section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960,2 convicted him of fraud by
false pretence instead of the offence of stealing charged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Three
grounds of appeal couched in non-legal language were filed and argued by the
appellant. The essence of the said grounds and the appellant’s submissions
thereon are: (1) the prosecution failed to prove intent to defraud, the
essential ingredient in each of the offences of which he was convicted, (2) the
documentary evidence contradicts the finding of the trial judge as to pretence
made by the appellant, and (3) the only representation made by the appellant
upon which the complainant could have acted is that he is an independent
contractor for the university; those representations he said are true in
substance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
document allegedly forged and uttered, exhibit A in the case, is a local
purchase order, shortly called an L.P.O., a recognised commercial document, the
nature of which, upon the evidence, is well known to the complainant, and to
every business man in this country.<o:p></o:p>Certain
facts in the case are either not in dispute, or substantially established by
the evidence. These briefly are as follows: The appellant is a food contractor
for the University of Ghana and carried on business under the name and style of
Economic Stabilizer. Whenever the university wanted a supply of goods from the
appellant they made requisition upon him by L.P.O. setting out the goods and
the quantities they required. The university sometimes requisitioned goods from
the complainant firm also by L.P.O.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 17
June 1963, the university issued an L.P.O. directed to the appellant to supply
them with “10 Bags X 1001b. White Rise. “The appellant then altered the figure
10 on the L.P.O. to read 110, and inserted two more items on the said L.P.O.,
namely, “300 Bags Flour,” and “50 CTNS Sugar”; he then presented the L.P.O.,
the same day, to the complainants and requested them to supply him with the
goods set out on the altered L.P.O. It was at about 5 p.m. when the appellant
presented the L.P.O. to the complainants at their store; the complainants told
him to come the next day, June 18 , to collect the goods.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant returned to the complainants’ store at about 8 o’clock the following
day with the same L.P.O. and said that he needed ten bags of the rice urgently
for the university, and he was accordingly supplied with ten bags. Later that
day, he was supplied with the remaining goods.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
afternoon of that day, the first prosecution witness, the manager of the
complainants’ firm, went to the university, apparently in consequence of some
information he had about the appellant and 300 bales of flour, to check up on the
L.P.O. and there discovered from the duplicate that the only goods the
university had requisitioned from the appellant were ten bags of rice. Upon his
return from the university he instructed his wholesale-keeper the second
prosecution witness, to supply the appellant with the last item on the L.P.O.,
namely, 50 cartons of sugar which was still outstanding. Thereafter he went to
the police with the L.P.O. and made a report, in consequence of which the
appellant was arrested.<o:p></o:p>