MUKTARI vs. THE STATE [1966]DLCA1716

Date	1966-11-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLCA1716

AKUFO-ADDO C.J

AZU CRABBE JA

LASSEY J.A.

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.

S. M. BOISON PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLCA1716
																																						<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" >MUKTARI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 697<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:
4 NOVEMBER 1966.<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">

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

S. M. BOISON, 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">

AKUFO-ADDO C.J., AZU CRABBE AND LASSEY
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Azu
Crabbe J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant in this case was
charged before the District Magistrate’s Court, Accra New Town, with the
offence of fraud by false pretence contrary to section 131 of the Criminal
Code, 1960.1 The particulars of the offence were stated 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">“For that
you Mallam Alhaji Muktari, on or about the 22nd day of July, 1963, at Nima in
the Accra Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court, with
intent to defraud did obtain cash the sum of £G500 from one Emmanuel Annan by
falsely pretending to the said Emmanuel Annan that you were a Mallam and that
if he could give you the said sum of £G500 you would bless the said sum
spiritually and buy for him a lorry with which he Emmanuel Annan would work and
succeed and be free from misfortune, whereas in truth and in fact, you well
knew at the time of making such statement to be false.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>One other
person (hereinafter referred to as the second accused) who stood trial with the
appellant on a second charge of aiding and abetting the appellant was
discharged and acquitted during the hearing after the prosecution had withdrawn
the charge against him. But the trial of the appellant continued, and he was in
the end found guilty of the charge and convicted accordingly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
record of the proceedings shows that the appellant, having been convicted,
admitted “two previous convictions for fraud by false pretences, three for
stealing, one for conspiracy and one for deceit of a public officer.” Therefore,
acting under section 3 (1) of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963,2
the learned district magistrate committed the appellant to the High Court for
sentence. The proceedings in the High Court are recorded 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">“Accused
in court. <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">Mr.
Ahlijah for the State. <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">State
attorney applies to court under section 1 of Act 192 and refers to previous
convictions of accused as appearing in record of proceedings. <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">By court:
<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">Accused
sentenced to twenty years, preventive custody with productive hard labour.
(Sgd.) S. Asafu-Adjaye <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">Judge.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant has now appealed to this court against his conviction, as he was
entitled to do by virtue of section 3 (2) of the Punishment of Habitual
Criminals Act, 1963. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for the appellant
abandoned the original grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and was granted
leave to argue only two additional grounds she had filed on behalf of the
appellant, namely, that the evidence did not support the charge against the
appellant, and that the learned district magistrate failed to consider the
defence. The court also granted her leave to argue a supplementa</main>