ALI AND OTHERS vs. THE REPUBLIC [1990]DLHC1962

Date	1990-05-11
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLHC1962

ADINYIRA J.

ISAAC OKYERE-DARKO FOR THE APPLICANT.

NICHOLAS ABODAKPI (ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1990]DLHC1962
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ALI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 GLR 570<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ISAAC OKYERE-DARKO FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

NICHOLAS ABODAKPI (ASSISTANT 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 1.0pt 0in">

</div>JUDGMENT OF ADINYIRA J.<o:p></o:p>The first appellant, a blindman, was charged with the offence of
stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), as
amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1969 (N.L.C.D. 398). The
second appellant was charged with abetment of stealing contrary to sections 20
and 124(1) of Act 29. The third appellant, a cripple, was charged with
dishonestly receiving contrary to section 146 of Act 29. The appellants were
arraigned before the District Court Grade I, Koforidua. The appellants were
convicted on 22 June 1989 and were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment
with hard labour. The appellants being dissatisfied, appealed against the said
conviction and sentence on the following grounds: “(1) the judgment cannot be
supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial; and (2) the
sentence is harsh and excessive.”<o:p></o:p>The facts of the case upon which the appellants were convicted
were that during the month of July 1988 the first appellant was in his room
when he heard the voices of some children passing. He called them and sent them
to buy him some food. One of the boys returned and handed him something wrapped
in a paper, and told him he had dropped something. He placed it on a table
beside him. Later on, the second appellant visited him and the first appellant
asked him what was contained in the paper. The second appellant informed him it
contained some earrings. So the first appellant asked him to go to a goldsmith
and find out what metal the earrings were made of. The third appellant
accompanied him to a goldsmith who told them they were made of gold valued
¢1,200. The third appellant bought them when the first appellant authorised the
second appellant to sell them to the goldsmith. The third appellant took the
earrings to the complainant, who is a goldsmith, for another check as to their
real value. The complainant claimed the earrings as part of his missing
trinkets valued at ¢55,000. He therefore took the third appellant to the police
station and lodged a complaint and the other appellants were also arrested.<o:p></o:p>In arguing ground (1), learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the first appellant
dishonestly appropriated the earrings. He submitted that from the available
facts, the earrings were lost articles. He referred to section 127 of Act 29
which deals with stealing of a thing found. He argued that the learned
magistrate should have addressed his mind to the section, but failed to do so.
If the learned magistrate had done so, he would have found the first appellant
not guilty of stealing and would have acquitted and discharged him. He would
thereby have acquitted and discharged the second and third appellants for the
offences of abetment of stealing and dishonestly receiving respectively. He
further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove at what point in time
that the first appellant dishonestly misappropriated the earrings. This
according to him was necessary in order to sustain the charge of abetment
against the second appellant, as the second appellant cannot be convicted for
abetting a crime after its completion. He relied on Commissioner of Police v.
Sarpey and Nyamekye [1961] G.L.R. 756 at 758, S.C. where it was held by the
Supreme Court that “abetment must be contemporaneous in place, time and
circumstance with the commission of the offence.” In respect of the third
appellant, learned counsel submitted that no evidence existed to show that he
knew the earrings were obtained by an offence thus his conviction was wrong.<o:p></o:p>In arguing ground (2), learned counsel submitted that due to the
infirmities of the first and third appellants, the custodial sentence of six
months’ imprisonment with hard labour was harsh and excessive.<o:p></o:p>In this appeal the point of substance worth considering is whether
the first appellant was guilty of stealing the earrings the school boys found
and gave to him. Section 127 of Act 29 which deals with stealing of a thing
found provides:<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">“127. A person who appropriates a thing which appears to have been
lost by another person is not guilty of stealing it, unless— <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a).&nbsp; at the time of appropriating
it, he knows who is the owner of the thing or by whom it has been lost; or <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shado</main>