ANTWI AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1971]DLHC2078

Date	1971-04-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2078

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

E. O. APPIAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

AMUI FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1971]DLHC2078
																																						<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" >ANTWI AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 412<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:
7 APRIL 1971.<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">

E. O.
APPIAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>In this
rather interesting case the two appellants were charged with another who was
acquitted and discharged at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case with the
three offences of conspiracy to steal, forgery and stealing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
appellant is a forester in the Forestry Department of the Ministry of
Agriculture, and the others are clerical assistants working under him at their
office at Yendi. The first appellant had the responsibility of the general
running of the office including the making of vouchers for the payment of
salaries and wages. In June 1969 the office became understaffed. It had no
typist but there was typing work which had to be done. The first appellant
therefore arranged with the two clerical assistants to do the typing work in
their leisure time. For their remuneration he conceived of and evolved a scheme
whereby they could be paid for the work done. He decided to include the name of
a fictitious person in the list of employees as a temporary typist and to pay
the clerical assistants their remuneration for the work done out of the wages
of the so-called employee. In preparing the voucher for the month of June he
caused the name of a Mr. E. K. Adu to be included in the voucher prepared for
the wages of the employees. When the voucher was passed and the money for Mr.
E. K. Adu was received, the first appellant made a compilation of the work done
by the two clerical assistants, paid them what was due to them and paid back
into the government chest the amount remaining, that is to say, the part of the
salary of the so-called Mr. E. K. Adu that was not used.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
salary of the Mr. E. K. Adu was to be N¢22.68. Out of that amount N¢12.00 was
used in paying the two clerical assistants and the balance of N¢10.68 was paid
back into the government chest.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The third
accused was acquitted and discharged at the close of the prosecution’s case
because it was established by the evidence that he was away on leave in June
1969 and had nothing to do with the preparation of the voucher. Although he
received his share of the amount alleged to have been stolen, he did not know
how the money was obtained. The first and second accused (the appellants) were
convicted on all three counts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I will
deal with the charge of forgery first, (count 2) and then deal with count 1
(conspiracy to steal) and count 3 (stealing) after that. The forgery which is
alleged to have been committed by the appellants is that:<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">“during
the month of June 1969, at Yendi, etc., with intent to commit a crime, to wit,
stealing [the appellants] did forge June payment voucher No. F.Y 301/68-69 by
inserting the name of one E. K. Adu whom you knew was not in existence for an
amount of N ¢22.68 which you accordingly cashed.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></s</main>