SEIDU vs. THE REPUBLIC [1976]DLHC441

Date	1976-04-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC441

EDWARD WIREDU J.

APPIAH (ALHASSAN WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

AMUI PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC441
																																						<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" >SEIDU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 288<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:
6 APRIL 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">

APPIAH (ALHASSAN WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

AMUI, PRINCIPAL 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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>On 11 June
1975 the appellant was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Tamale, charged with
the following offences:<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">“Count
One <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">Issue of
false cheque, contrary to section 313A (1) (b) of the Criminal Code 1960, (Act
29), as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 160).
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">Amadu
Seidu, farmer, on 22 January 1974 at Tamale in the Northern Circuit did issue
cheque No. 355243/469095 dated 22nd January 1974 for ¢3,000.00 in respect of
your account with the Barclays Bank, Tamale, when you had no reasonable ground
to believe that there were adequate funds in the account to pay the amount
specified on the cheque within the normal course of banking business.<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"><o:p>&nbsp;</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">Count Two
<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">Issue of
false cheque, contrary to section 313A (1) (c) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act
29), as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 160).
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">Amadu
Seidu, farmer, on 22 January 1974 at Tamale in the Northern Circuit with intent
to defraud Mencilo Co., Ltd. did stop cheque No. 355243/469095 dated 22 January
1974 for ¢3,000.00 which had been previously issued by you.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He was
tried and convicted on the second count on 5 November 1975 and was sentenced to
a prison term of six months. He had earlier on been acquitted and discharged on
the first count on a submission of no case to answer at the close of the
prosecution’s case.<o:p></o:p>It is
from the said conviction and sentence that he has appealed to this court on
five main grounds which read 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">“(1) that
the judgment is against the weight of 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">(2) That
the circuit judge erred in law in basing his conviction mainly on slight
variations in the evidence adduced by the accused. <o:p></o:p>