REPUBLIC vs. BAYFORD [1973]DLHC2247

Date	1973-06-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2247

CHARLES CRABBE J.

I. AHLIJAH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

R. S. BLAY WITH HIM POLLEY FOR THE ACCUSED.

[1973]DLHC2247
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BAYFORD <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SEKONDI]<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;[1973]
2 GLR 421<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
26 JUNE 1973.<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">

I. AHLIJAH, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
REPUBLIC.<o:p></o:p>

R. S. BLAY, WITH HIM POLLEY, FOR THE ACCUSED.<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">

CHARLES CRABBE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.<o:p></o:p>The
accused is charged on two counts of dishonestly receiving, on the first count
860 brass nuts and on the second count 23 water meters.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
end of the case for the prosecution, counsel for the accused submitted that no
prima facie case had been made against the accused. The accused was charged
under section 146 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), which is a straight
forward case of dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to have been
stolen or knowing it to have been dishonestly appropriated. According to
Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence &amp; Practice (36th ed.), there are
certain ingredients to be proved. The first is that if it is stealing, then the
theft must be proved. If it is dishonestly appropriated, that must be proved.
Having proved that, the prosecution must go further and prove that the accused
did receive the goods that were misappropriated in any of the following
manners: that is, with guilty intent, knowing or should have known or ought to
have known that they were stolen or dishonestly misappropriated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the defence counsel there has not been a tittle of evidence to prove any of
these ingredients. The evidence so far is that of the second prosecution
witness who is the star witness for the prosecution that the accused, even
though the manager of the company, does not himself buy or receive goods except
in one respect, namely, that when companies or corporations have scrap or goods
to sell in bulk the accused personally goes to the company or corporation to
negotiate the sale, and bid for the goods. When that is done he returns to the
office and the goods are received on waybills; and that is the only time that
the accused comes into contact with the goods sold.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
company’s other source of supply comes from agents of the company at Kumasi and
Accra. Local sales and purchases are made by the employees of the company at
Takoradi under the supervision of police officers who are constantly on duty at
all working hours of the company. The only time when the accused comes into
contact is where there is suspicion and the police on duty complain. The
accused then phones to the police who come and investigate the matter and where
necessary arrests are made. So there is not a tittle of evidence against the
accused. If anything, the evidence led by the prosecution tends to exculpate
the accused from any crime.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At most
what the prosecution has proved is that exhibits A and B were found on the
premises of the company. If that is the case, one would have thought that it is
the company which ought to have been prosecuted and not the accused. Under
section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), the company could
have been brought here as such. The company should have been prosecuted and not
the accused. Something more than the goods being found on the company’s
premises must be proved if the accused is to be prosecuted personally and they
should have gone on to say that exhibits A and B were brought to the accused,
the accused personally, and he must know or must have known that the things
were dishonestly obtained and none-the-less he bought them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the accused continued that the statements taken from the accused show that
he did not know anyth</main>