SANTUOH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1975]DLHC438

Date	1975-10-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC438

OWUSU-ADDO J.

ADDAI-MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

REX BRUCE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1975]DLHC438
																																						<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" >SANTUOH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 44<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:
17 OCTOBER 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">

ADDAI-MENSAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

REX BRUCE, 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">

OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>On 21 May
1974, the appellant Kwame Santuoh was convicted of dishonestly receiving by a
Kumasi circuit court and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard
labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant can be summarised as
follows: During the early hours of 23 August 1973, thieves broke into shops
belonging to the first eighteen prosecution witnesses, and stole several pieces
of wax print therefrom. The shops were situated at Adum in Kumasi. The
appellant was tried with four others whose appeals against their convictions
and sentences have been dismissed summarily for want of merit. They were
charged with the offences of conspiracy to steal, unlawful entry and stealing
but acquitted and discharged of the first two charges and convicted of
stealing. The first accused at the trial, Musah Mali, popularly known as Dogo
was employed as a watchman by Messrs Major &amp; Co. in Kumasi. His place of
work is sited at Adum, just fifteen yards from the house of the appellant. For
some time the appellant and Dogo had been on very friendly terms. He was
therefore well known to members of the appellant’s family including his son the
twentieth prosecution witness and his wife the twenty-second prosecution
witness. At dawn on 23 August 1973, whilst the appellant was asleep in his
house. Dogo Moshie and his confederates carried 133 pieces of wax print to the
appellant’s house for safe keeping. The explanation given by Dogo for taking
the prints to the appellant’s house was that his relatives had arrived with the
prints but because he had no room to keep them in his place of work, he would
like the appellant to keep them in his house for him. Without any questioning,
the appellant woke the twentieth prosecution witness up and in his room the
prints were kept until the following day, when the police, upon a tip off, took
possession of them and sent them to the Central Police Station. Both the
appellant and the twentieth prosecution witness were absent when the police
forced open the room where the wax prints had been deposited. The former had
travelled outside Kumasi whilst the latter had gone out of the house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
appeal five grounds were filed and argued on behalf of the appellant with great
tenacity and ability. But after a very careful consideration of counsel’s
submission, I concluded that the only point of substance worth considering is
whether the appellant knew at the time he received the wax prints that they had
been stolen.<o:p></o:p>Under our
Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), the offence of dishonestly receiving is explained
in section 147 (1) and reads thus<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 person
is guilty of dishonestly receiving any property which he knows to have been
obtained or appropriated by any crime, if he receives, buys, or in any manner
assists in the disposal of such property otherwise than with a purpose to
restore it to the owner.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In proof
of this offence the prosecution must show that: (1) the 133 pieces of wax print
found in the house of the appellant were stolen and (2) the appellant knew they
were stolen at the time he received them.<o:p></o:p>As to the
first ingredient, the evidence established beyond all reasonable doubt that the
wax prints found in the appellant’s possession were stolen from the shops of
the first eighteen prosecution witnesses. Each of the witnesses gave evidence
that his shop was broken into during the night of 22 August 1973 and his pieces
of wax print stolen. On the following day each identified his stolen prints at
the police station among the prints found in the appellant’s house. This
ingredient has been amply proved and need not be discussed any further.<o:p></o:p>