ANSAH-SASRAKU vs. THE STATE [1966]DLSC1652

Date	1966-04-18
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1652

MILLS-ODOI JSC

APALOO JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

K. A. SEKYI STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1652
																																						<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" >ANSAH-SASRAKU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>THE STATE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 294<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:
18 APRIL 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">

P. A. ADJETEY FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

K. A. SEKYI, 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">

MILLS-ODOI, APALOO AND SIRIBOE 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. On 9 April 1965, the appellant was
convicted by the District Court, Tema, of the offence of fraud by false
pretences and was sentenced by the High Court, Accra, under the Punishment of
Habitual Criminals, Act, 1963,1 to ten years’ preventive custody with
productive hard labour. The facts which gave rise to the prosecution and which
the learned district magistrate found are as follows: some time in January
1965, the complainant who was an engineering superintendent of the Ministry of
Agriculture was in dire need of money. He required the money to make good some
defalcations committed in his department by his subordinate officers. As the
complainant was not himself in funds, his wife saw the appellant who is a relation
of her’s and requested him to give a loan to the complainant. The appellant
agreed to grant a loan of £G300 to the complainant. Accordingly, the latter
came down to Accra from Dunkwa for this purpose. He lodged with the appellant.
This was on or about 2 January 1965.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
evening of 7 January 1965, the appellant requested the complainant to make out
a receipt for the sum of £G300 in his favour. The former did so in longhand.
This was typed out by the appellant and was thereafter signed by the complainant.
As the appellant promised to hand over the sum of £G300 to the complainant the
next morning in return for the signed receipt, the latter left the receipt in
his notebook overnight. The receipt disappeared from the note-book the next
morning but the appellant admitted to the complainant that he had in fact taken
it. The former then invited the latter to go with him to the bank to receive
payment. Both set off for the bank and while en route, the appellant confessed
to the complainant that he was then not in credit at the bank and would require
some time to arrange an overdraft facility. Upon learning this, the complainant
requested the return for the time being of the receipt which was still in the
appellant’s possession. The appellant declined to do this and claimed that he
had in fact paid to the complainant the £G300 and obtained the receipt in
acknowledgement thereof. This was found to be false.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From
these facts, the learned district magistrate felt satisfied first, that the
appellant represented to the complainant that he was in a position to lend the
complainant £G300; secondly, that this representation was false to the
knowledge of the appellant; thirdly, that the complainant executed the receipt
for the appellant in the belief of this representation and fourthly, the
appellant’s intention was to defraud. Holding therefore that all the
ingredients of the offence were established, he proceeded to convict the
appellant of the offence of fraud by false pretences. Evidence was given of the
appellant’s antecedents, apparently to enable the learned magistrate to impose
an appropriate sentence. This reveals a shocking record of crime. It was proved
that the appellant had 27 previous convictions dating from 1934 to 1958 most of
which are offences involving dishonesty. Accordingly, the magistrate committed
him to the High Court to be dealt with under the Punishment of Habitual
Criminals Act, 1963. The learned judge of the High Court thought this a fit
case for invoking the provisions of Act 192 and imposed on the appellant a
sentence of ten years’ preventive custody with productive hard labour. Against
this conviction and sentence, the appellant appealed to this court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It was
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the conviction for obtaining the
receipt by false pretences was wrong as the evidence for the prosecution, taken
at its best only shows that the appellant procured the signing of the receipt.
There was no evidence, counsel argued, that the appellant obtained the consent
of the complainant to part with the possession or ownership of the receipt. In
any event, said counsel, the receipt belonged to the appellant and it cannot be
said that he obtained the consent of the complainant to part with his own
property. Counsel referred us to the complainant’s evidence and pointed out
that on his own showing, he did not part with the possession of the receipt to
the appellant who, according to him, took possession of it without his consent.
Accordingly, counsel intended us to say that the conviction on the charge of
fraud by false pretences was wrong and asked us to quash it.<o:p></o:p>We cannot
agree that the ownership of the receipt which formed the subject-matter of this
charge was in the appellant. In our opinion, it was in the complainant and the
evidence shows plainly that the physical handing of the £G300 to the
complainant by the appellant and the transfer of ownership of the receipt by
the complainant to the appellan</main>