ACQUAH v. THE REPUBLI

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.

The appellant was charged with keeping eleven bags of rice in a manner likely to create a shortage of that commodity to the public. Each bag of rice weighed 220 lb.

The case for the prosecution was that on 19 April 1972, some army personnel visited the kiosk of the appellant. It was not locked. They saw that some empty soap boxes and empty sugar boxes had been packed on top of some items. They entered the kiosk. They saw bags of rice covered with a woman's cover cloth. They collected eleven bags of rice and sent them to the Ghana National Trading Corporation for safe keeping. The matter was reported to the police. According to the prosecution the appellant had not displayed rice anywhere. On the other hand, there were bars of soap which had been cut into pieces which she was selling.

She was found guilty by the learned trial circuit judge. A fine of ¢50.00 was imposed in default of which she would go to prison for two months with hard labour. She felt aggrieved at this and appealed on the ground that:

"(a) The judgment is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial.

[p.119]

(b) Further grounds will be filed on receipt of the certified true copy of the proceedings."

At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellant challenged the interpretation of the learned trial circuit judge of paragraph (b) of section 6 (1) of the Price Control Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 17). That is to say, the interpretation which the learned trial judge gave to the expression keeping goods "in a manner likely to create or contribute to a shortage of those goods available to the public." He contended that failure to display the goods did not constitute keeping goods in a manner likely to create shortage. One could refuse to supply a commodity but at the same time sell that commodity. In his view, there ought to have been some evidence that the appellant refused to sell.

A person who was a well-known trader under the system of trading prevailing in Takoradi, at least, would still have any number of people going to her or coming to her to buy rice. He maintained that it was the refusal to sell which constituted an offence under the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 6 (1) of the Decree. At the material time at which the appellant was supposed to be hoarding rice, she was at the police station in connection with selling soap above the controlled price. Taking into account all the circumstances of th