REPUBLIC vs. DUFA AND ANOTHER [1976]DLHC430

Date	1976-02-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC430

MENSA BOISON J.

AGBENU SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

DR. ANKAMAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC430
																																						<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>DUFA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 18<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:
2 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

AGBENU, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

DR. ANKAMAH 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal by the Republic against the decision of th District Court Grade II,
Dormaa-Ahenkro, Republic against the decision of the whereby the first
respondent (hereafter called the accused) was absolutely discharged of an
offence of selling above the controlled price. This appeal does not affect the second
respondent as he was eventually discharged for want of prosecution.<o:p></o:p>The
offence charged the accused as follows:<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">“Statement
of offence: <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.
Selling above the control price: section 17 of N.R.C.D. 17 of 1972.<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">PARTICULARS
OF OFFENCE: <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">Yaa Dufa:
Kenkey seller for that you on 18 May 1974, at Dormaa Ahenkro, etc. did sell one
tin of sardines for 30 pesewas instead of nineteen pesewas to L./Cpl. George
Annor thus making an illegal profit of eleven pesewas.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The accused
was a kenkey seller and sold a tin of sardines at the price alleged together
with some kenkey. On her first appearance in court on 18 June 1974, the accused
having pleaded guilty to the charge was convicted and sentenced to three
months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On the next day for some unexplained
reasons the accused was before the court again; the court notes recording as
follows:<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">“By
court: The accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard
labour; sentence is rescinded. She rather (was) influenced by the second
accused whose trial has not been completed. The accused’s son appears very
feeble and sickly, the accused’s sentence is reserved till 25 June 1974. The
first accused granted bail — ¢200.00 with one surety.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 25
June 1974, the accused entered a fresh plea of “not guilty” the matter being
further adjourned to 4 July 1974. The court notes of 4 July 1974 have it as
follows:<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">“By
court: The accused is not a trader in the sense of N.R.C.D. 17. She is a mere
kenkey seller and sold the sardines alongside her kenkey as an ingredient. In
the circumstances the first accused is cautioned and discharged.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
a question of jurisdiction raised by the procedure adopted by the court. When
on the first appearance on 16 June 1974 the accused was convicted and sentenced
to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, the accused thereafter passed
into the hands of the goaler; although in this case as the record shows she was
kept in custody for the night at Dormaa-Ahenkro Police Station. Indeed where
after a perfectly proper hearing a trial court convicts and pronounces </main>