DARKWA AND ANOTHER vs. THE REPUBLIC [1973]DLHC2374

Date	1973-12-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2374

ATA-BEDU J.

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR NUTSUGA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ADDO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2374
																																						<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" >DARKWA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<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 100<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:
15 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">

I. N. K. WUAKU FOR NUTSUGA FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

ADDO, ASSISTANT 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">

ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellants were tried by the District Magistrate, Grade I, Sogakofe, and
convicted on a charge of extortion under section 239 of the Criminal Code, 1960
(Act 29), and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour each.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
time of the alleged offence they were both escort police constables and were
alleged to have demanded and obtained the sum of ¢10.00 from one Nuborbi
Adzokatse under colour of their office. They were stationed at Adidome.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of appeal filed are:<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 cannot be
supported having regard to the evidence.<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">(b) The learned magistrate failed
to consider fully the defence of the appellants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
for the prosecution is that on 24 April 1971 the complainant, the first
prosecution witness, travelled on the truck of the fifth prosecution witness to
Adidome Poultry Farm to buy some chicks. On their arrival at Adidome at 8 a.m.,
they saw the appellants both in uniform near the police station. The appellants
stopped the fifth prosecution witness and asked for his driving documents.
These documents were handed to the first appellant by the driver, the fifth
prosecution witness, who explained, in answer to the first appellant, that his
handbrake was not functioning effectively because he could not obtain the
necessary materials for the repair. The first appellant kept the driving
documents and told the fifth prosecution witness to meet them (the appellants)
at Adidome junction on their return from the poultry farm. On their return
journey they saw the appellants standing under a mango tree at Adidome junction
where the fifth prosecution witness stopped his vehicle, alighted and walked up
to them and demanded the return of his documents to him. It is at this stage
that, according to the fifth prosecution witness, the first appellant demanded
from him some drink before he would give back the documents. When the fifth
prosecution witness said he had only one cedi the first appellant said that was
not enough and demanded ¢10.00 from the fifth prosecution witness, who remained
with the appellants for about three hours pleading with them to accept the one
cedi he had on him while the first prosecution witness was waiting in the
vehicle for the fifth prosecution witness. Realising that his chicks were dying
as a result of the delay, the first prosecution witness went up to the fifth
prosecution witness and demanded to know the reason for the delay. The first
appellant, it is alleged, became annoyed, boarded the vehicle with the second
appellant and requested the fifth prosecution witness to drive to the police
station, according to the fifth prosecution witness, to be charged. After
driving the vehicle, the fifth prosecution witness, on the request of the first
appellant, stopped and the three of them alighted, repaired to a small building
where the demand was again renewed and discussed and the second appellant is
alleged to have said, for the first time in the endeavour, that the one cedi
was not enough and, therefore, they would not accept it. The first prosecution
witness again went up to them and asked what was happening. The first
prosecution witness was told by the fifth prosecution witness in the presence
of the appellants that both appellants had told him the one cedi was not enough
but they wanted ¢10.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According
to the first prosecution witness, when he went up to the fifth prosecution
witness and the appellants near the small building and complai</main>