ACQUAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2346

Date	1973-12-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2346

CHARLES CRABBE J.

AMARTEIFIO FOR THE APPELLANT.

ADINYIRA ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2346
																																						<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" >ACQUAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;THE REPUBLIC <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 117<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:
1 DECEMBER 1972<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">

AMARTEIFIO FOR THE APPELLANT.<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
appellant was charged with keeping eleven bags of rice in a manner likely to
create a shortage of that commodity to the public. Each bag of rice weighed 220
lb.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the prosecution was that on 19 April 1972, some army personnel visited the
kiosk of the appellant. It was not locked. They saw that some empty soap boxes
and empty sugar boxes had been packed on top of some items. They entered the
kiosk. They saw bags of rice covered with a woman’s cover cloth. They collected
eleven bags of rice and sent them to the Ghana National Trading Corporation for
safe keeping. The matter was reported to the police. According to the
prosecution the appellant had not displayed rice anywhere. On the other hand,
there were bars of soap which had been cut into pieces which she was selling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She was
found guilty by the learned trial circuit judge. A fine of ¢50.00 was imposed
in default of which she would go to prison for two months with hard labour. She
felt aggrieved at this and appealed on the ground 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">“(a) The
judgment is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
adduced at the trial.<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">&nbsp;(b) Further grounds will be filed on receipt
of the certified true copy of the proceedings.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant challenged the interpretation
of the learned trial circuit judge of paragraph (b) of section 6 (1) of the
Price Control Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 17). That is to say, the interpretation
which the learned trial judge gave to the expression keeping goods “in a manner
likely to create or contribute to a shortage of those goods available to the
public.” He contended that failure to display the goods did not constitute
keeping goods in a manner likely to create shortage. One could refuse to supply
a commodity but at the same time sell that commodity. In his view, there ought
to have been some evidence that the appellant refused to sell.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A person
who was a well-known trader under the system of trading prevailing in Takoradi,
at least, would still have any number of people going to her or coming to her
to buy rice. He maintained that it was the refusal to sell which constituted an
offence under the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 6 (1) of the Decree.
At the material time at which the appellant was supposed to be hoarding rice,
she was at the police station in connection with selling soap above the
controlled price. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, it
was his view that the appeal should be allowed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>