BEDIAKO vs. THE REPUBLIC [1975]DLHC368

Date	1975-07-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC368

SARKODEE J.

K. S. P. JANTUAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

G. K. AVAH STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1975]DLHC368
																																						<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" >BEDIAKO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 39<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:
24 JULY 1975.<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">

K. S. P. JANTUAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

G. K. AVAH, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.<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">

SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant and one Benjamin Kwabena Bediako, a cousin of his, were charged
jointly with the offence of extortion contrary to section 239 (1) of the
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The first accused is at large therefore the
charge against him having been withdrawn the trial proceeded against the second
accused in the circuit court which convicted him on 5 August 1974 and sentenced
him to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The accused dissatisfied
appealed against the said conviction on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>“(a) The
judgment is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
(b) The learned trial judge erred in law in requiring the appellant to prove
the alibi filed.”<o:p></o:p>The
following additional grounds of appeal were also filed and argued:<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">“(1) The
learned trial judge did not give any or adequate or proper consideration to the
case of the defence which was mainly an alibi. <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">(2) The
defence of alibi of the accused [appellant] remained at the time of the close
of prosecution case and indeed up to the end of the trial absolutely unshaken
by the prosecution. <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">(3) The
learned trial judge misdirected herself by acting on such circumstantial
evidence as she ought not in law to act upon.”<o:p></o:p>The facts
of the case upon which the accused was convicted were that Abdulai Idrisu the
first prosecution witness was a proprietor of a small shop at Kwashiman, a
suburb of Accra. At about 8.30 p.m. on 20 February 1973 the appellant and one
other visited the shop where Idrisu sold a cake of sunlight soap to the first
accused for 15p. The second accused there and then introduced himself as a
policeman, which in fact he was, and said he had arrested Idrisu for selling
above the controlled price. Idrisu called his friend Seidu the second
prosecution witness to go to his aid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The two
of them pleaded with the accused to show mercy. The second accused therefore
agreed to drop the case if Idrisu paid him ¢25.00. Idrisu paid the amount in
the presence of Seidu.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
arguing additional ground (1) learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
there was hardly any reference in the judgment of the learned circuit judge to
the defence of alibi notice of which learned counsel said was given to the
prosecution. Counsel continued that in the appellant’s statement, exhibit A, he
gave particulars of the alibi and gave the addresses and names of persons with
whom he was, to enable the prosecution to investigate. That, learned counsel,
submitted, amounted to sufficient notice for the purposes of section 131 of Act
30. Mr. Avah, for the Republic, on the other hand argued that the defence put
up by the appellant did not amount to alibi. He added that the section of the
Act required that notice of alibi should be filed and that a mere statement of
an accused person is not enough.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
131 of Act 30 provides:<o:p></o:p>