NKANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC [1979]DLHC1089

Date	1979-11-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1089

OWUSU-ADDO J.

ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT.

BRUCE SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[1979]DLHC1089
																																						<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" >NKANSAH <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; vs.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 184<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
16 NOVEMBER 1978<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">

ADU-GYAMFI FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

BRUCE, SENIOR 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant was convicted by the Assin Fosu District Court, Grade II on 19
December 1977, of the offence of selling above the controlled price contrary to
sections 2 (1) and 3 (1) of the Price Control Decree, 1974 (N.R.C.D. 305). She
was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour and ordered to
refund to the complainant an amount of ¢2.40, being double the illegal profit.
Her appeal is against both her conviction and sentence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Originally
two grounds of appeal were filed but at the hearing of the appeal the only
serious point raised in the additional ground of appeal was strenuously argued
by the appellant’s counsel. It reads, “The charge as stated in the statement of
offence did not disclose any triable offence.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
submission learned counsel urged that omission of a reference to the
contravened executive instrument namely, the Price Control (Maximum Prices)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Order, 1975 (E.I. 50 of 1975), in the statement of offence,
rendered the statement incurably defective. Consequently, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant which flowed from a defective statement of offence was a
nullity and ought to be set aside. He placed much reliance on the case of
Republic v. Dufa [1976] 2 G.L.R. 18. In short, counsel for the appellant
submitted that due to the omission of the offending executive instrument in the
statement of offence, the appellant was charged and convicted of a non-existing
offence, and accordingly, his conviction on her plea of guilty should be
quashed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In reply,
the learned senior state attorney contended that the inclusion of the executive
instrument in the statement of offence would have been desirable but not
essential. He explained that an essential legal requirement is that an accused
person should be informed sufficiently of the offence charged in a simple
language understood by him, and here, there is evidence that the charge was
read and explained to the appellant in Twi language, which is her mother
tongue. The omission therefore of reference to the executive instrument in the
statement of offence is a mere technical error which has not occasioned any
miscarriage of justice. He drew the court’s attention to the decision in the
case of Asamoah v. The Republic [1973] 1 G.L.R. 186 which he submitted is
supportable in law and ought to be followed in this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
charge preferred against the appellant described the offence with complete
accuracy in the statement of offence which reads:<o:p></o:p>“STATEMENT
OF OFFENCE Selling above the controlled price: contrary to sections 2 (1) and 3
(1) (a) of N.R.C.D. 305. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE GRACE NKANSAH: petty trader: On
16 December 1977, at Assin Praso in the Central Magisterial District and within
the jurisdiction of this court did sell two boxes of matches for ¢1.20 instead
of 10 pesewas thus making illegal profit of ¢1.10.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To this
charge the appellant pleaded guilty simpliciter after</main>