NATTEY vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [1966]DLSC1718

Date	1966-04-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1718

OLLENNU JSC

BRUCE-LYLE JSC

SIRIBOE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

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

[1966]DLSC1718
																																						<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" >NATTEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>COMMISSIONER OF POLICE <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 284<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 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">

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, BRUCE-LYLE AND SIRIBOE JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Siriboe
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. On 16 December 1965, we allowed
this appeal, quashed the convictions and sentences of nine months’ imprisonment
with hard labour concurrent passed upon the appellant and acquitted and
discharged him, reserving to be given later, our reasons which are as follows:
The appellant was convicted on 29 January 1962, by Mr. Aryee then District
Magistrate, Kumasi, on two counts of fraud by false pretences contrary to
section 131 of the Criminal Code.1 The particulars of the two counts were that
he on 23 and 28 December 1960, obtained store goods to the value of £G293 1s.
and £G274 5s. respectively, from the store of Messrs. C.F.A.O., Kumasi, by
reason of certain representations he knew to be false. The alleged representations
being the issue by the appellant of two cheques, Nos. 273/61726 for £G293 1s.
and 273/61728 for £G274 5s. drawn on Barclays Bank, (D.C.O.), Kejetia, Kumasi,
in payment of the goods in question, which cheques were dishonoured upon
presentation for payment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
undisputed facts are that some time in the month of December 1960, the
appellant, a trader, applied by a printed form exhibit A, to the company for
credit facilities upon payment of a deposit of £G100 by cheque to the said
company. The cheque was drawn on his bankers, Barclays Bank (D.C.O.), Kejetia
Branch, Kumasi, which was duly met upon presentation. On or about the same day
that the appellant paid his deposit, he obtained goods worth £G98 3s. On two
subsequent occasions, as mentioned in the charges, he collected other goods,
for which he issued the two cheques in question (tendered at the trial as
exhibits C and D respectively). These constitute the subject-matter of the
offences charged, for as already stated, the prosecution’s contention is that upon
presentation for payment by the company, they were dishonoured.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant’s case is that although it was a deposit of £G100 that was paid,
nevertheless, the sales manager who dealt with him, agreed to grant him credit
facilities up to a limit of £G600. Furthermore that he agreed to withhold for a
period of about one to two months, the two cheques in question, to enable the
appellant to augment his accounts with the bank by moneys he would collect from
his own customers, before presenting the cheque for payment, and that the time
was not due when the presentation was made, and so he had no intention to
defraud the company.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
magistrate, however, convicted the appellant holding that he did not think that
he was given credit facilities up to £G600 as alleged; for if it were so, there
would have been some record of it in the books—which kind of books, of course,
he did not specify, and none was tendered either. He also said he did not
accept the defence case that the sales manager agreed to delay the cheques for
some time before presentations. It should be pointed out that the sales manager
referred to did not give evidence at the trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied
with his conviction, the appellant appealed to the High Court, Kumasi, but his
appeal was summarily dismissed. He accordingly appealed further to this court.
The substance of his brief submission (not being represented by counsel) was
almost the same as the defence put up at the trial with this bit added to it:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That when
he was told that the cheques had been dishonoured, he paid on account, an
amount of £G80. Later he was contacted by the police and questioned about the
matter, but was allowed to go away after explaining the position to them. He
thereafter paid a further amount of £G180 to the company but soon after this,
he was arrested and charged. Since then, according to the appellant, other
payments have been made by him. He therefore concluded by submitting that the
prosecution failed to prove against him any intent to defraud.<o:p></o:p>