TACKIE AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE [1964]DLSC1956

Date	1964-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1956

OLLENNU JSC

ACOLATSE JSC

APALOO J.S.C.

THE APPELLANTS IN PERSON.

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

[1964]DLSC1956
																																						<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" >TACKIE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 262<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:
1ST 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">

THE APPELLANTS 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 APALOO JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J. S. C.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. Both appellants were on 19 March
1963 convicted before the circuit court of stealing and the first appellant
alone was convicted on eleven counts of falsification of accounts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
which gave rise to his prosecution are substantially straight-forward and are
entirely free from complexity. The first appellant was, at the date material to
this case, the paymaster of the Ghana National Construction Corporation. As the
name of his post implies, the first appellant’s main duty was to pay out wages
and salaries of the employees of the corporation. He was assisted in this by a
number of officers of the corporation who were variously designated wages or
pay clerks. The total amount of wages payable to the employees of the
corporation are made out on a document called pay rolls. The figures on the pay
rolls are culled out from what are known as wages cards. These cards are
normally prepared by the wages clerks. The pay rolls always show the total
amount of earnings and net amounts payable to the various workmen. These pay
rolls were prepared either by the first appellant or his underlings and the
evidence shows that the first appellant had overall responsibility for their
accuracy. After pay out, the various pay rolls were returned to him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Although
he was by substantive appointment an assistant accountant, the second appellant
was in February 1961 acting as the accountant of the corporation. Whatever
other duties his office carried, the evidence makes it plain that one of his
duties was to instruct the cashier at the end of the month to requisition for
cash for the payment of wages. He did this after satisfying himself as to the
total amount required for wages for a particular month. The total amount was
normally communicated to him by the comptometer operator who would have
ascertained this from the comptometer. This was confirmed by the first
appellant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
February 1961 the total amount of money required to meet the payment of wages, salaries
and petty expenses was £G15,800. This was made up of £G14,765 13s. 4d. for
wages, £G987 12s. 7d. in respect of salaries and the sum of £G46 14s 1d. was
required to meet petty expenses. The second appellant knew the total amount
required to meet the payment of salaries and petty expenses. Mr. Macarthy, the
comptometer operator, in the ordinary course of duty informed the second
appellant that a total sum of £G14,765 13s. 4d. was required to meet the
payment of wages. Accordingly, the second appellant knew that only an aggregate
sum of £G15,800 was required to meet the corporation’s financial obligation for
the month of February 1961. Yet with this knowledge, he instructed the cashier
to make a requisition for £G17,000, a sum of £G1,200 in excess of what was
actually required.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the evidence, Mr. Odartei Lamptey, the cashier, duly carried out the second
appellant’s instructions and made out a cheque for £G17,000. This was in due
course signed by a Mr. Zuchman. It was on 1 March 1961. On the next day, that
is, 2 March the second appellant accompanied the cashier to the bank and the
cheque was duly cashed. The money was thereafter deposited in the second
appellant’s office. This done, the various pay clerks called at the second
appellant’s office and received from him sums of money which tallied with the
totals on their respective pay rolls. They issued receipts in favour of the
second appellant for these sums.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Almost
all the pay clerks testified that the first appellant was with the second appellant
and helped in arranging the coins in a cash tray and while the second appellant
paid out the notes to these officers, the first appellant handed them the
coins. After all the paying clerks had received the moneys they required to
meet the wages on their respective pay rolls, the first appellant then received
from the </main>