REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE GRADE I, TEMA; EX PARTE AKOTIAH AND OTHERS [1987]DLHC1191

REPUBLIC vs. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE GRADE I, TEMA; EX PARTE AKOTIAH AND OTH... [1987]DLHC1191

Date	1987-10-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLHC1191

AGYEPONG J.

APPLICANTS IN PERSON.

RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

WILLIE AMARFIO FOR THE PRIVATE PROSECUTORS.

[1987]DLHC1191
																																						<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>DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE GRADE I, TEMA; EX PARTE AKOTIAH
AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1979] GLR 341<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:
24 OCTOBER 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">

APPLICANTS IN PERSON.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AGYEPONG J.<o:p></o:p>[The
court after considering and dismissing as without substance, six grounds in
support of the application for certiorari and prohibition, here referred to
ground 7, i.e. whether once Attorney-General or the police have decided against
prosecution of the applicants, there could be no private prosecution and
continued:]<o:p></o:p>There is
nothing in section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), which
disables a private person from launching a private prosecution where the
Attorney-General or the police decline or decide against prosecution. Section
61 (1) of Act 30 provides:<o:p></o:p>“61. (1)
Any person who believes from a reasonable and probable cause that an offence
has been committed by any person may make a complaint thereof to a District
Magistrate who has jurisdiction to try or enquire into the alleged offence, or
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person accused is alleged to
reside or be.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
jurisdiction conferred on a private citizen to institute private prosecution is
unqualified except by the provisions of section 61 (1) and (2). Subsection (2)
reads:<o:p></o:p>“(2)
Every complaint shall be made orally or in writing, but if made orally shall be
reduced into writing by the Magistrate and in either case shall be signed by
the complainant and the Magistrate.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>And of
course the provisions do not include the ground urged by Mr. Akotiah.<o:p></o:p>Ground 8
(i) That a human corpse could not be the subject of a stealing charge could
properly be urged in the District Court Grade I, Tema. It could be argued as a
preliminary objection. But certainly in the present circumstances, it cannot be
a ground for certiorari.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Indeed,
if the charges of conspiracy to steal and stealing the corpse of the Ada mantse
appearing in the summons could be proved to be bad in law, it is not apparent
on the face of the record that they are bad in law. Therefore the proceedings
of certiorari to quash the summons will fail: see Republic v. Accra Special
Circuit Court; Ex parte Akosah [1977] 2 G.L.R. 283 at p. 293. For it was held
in Sam v. The State [1967] G.L.R. 283 by Archer J. (as he then was) that a
human skull interred with the body could be the subject of a stealing charge. A
fortiori, so could the body of a paramount chief, which is removed from a
hospital mortuary without the knowledge or consent of the elders or kingmakers
of a traditional area, be the subject of a stealing charge, because, unlike the
skull which was actually interred, the corpse of the paramount chief was in the
legal possession of the elders and the kingmakers, ready for the performance of
a burial and other rites befitting a paramount chief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>