AGBETTOH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.

Blay J. S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant in this case was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Ho, on 21 counts, eleven of which alleged forgery of documents, six of uttering forged documents and four of stealing. The particulars of the offence in respect of the forgery charges were that the appellant with intent to commit a crime, to wit, stealing, did forge "the signature of the secretary of the Regional Commissioner, Ho," on the documents mentioned in the charges. The facts of the case against the appellant may briefly be stated as follows: the appellant who was a clerical officer at the Regional Commissioner's Office, Ho, [p.414] in the month of December 1961, proceeded to Accra armed with a document purporting to be a genuine requisition for counterfoil receipt books and on the strength of the said document which was marked as exhibit L during the trial, did obtain from the Accountant-General's Department, two liquor licence books marked in the case as exhibits C1 and C2. Having secured these liquor licence books he proceeded to issue without authority licences to various persons and collected the licence fees thereon from them. The fees thus collected, amounting in all to the sum of £G80, were not paid into the Government chest but were misappropriated by the appellant.

The learned circuit judge after a lengthy hearing in which 22 witnesses were called by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty on the forgery charges and sentenced him to a term of two years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. He, however, curiously enough acquitted him on the counts of uttering forged documents, but convicted him on the counts of stealing in respect of which he imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment on each count also to run concurrently, but cumulative with the sentence of two years on the counts of forgery.

It is from these convictions that the appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds:

"(1) That the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

(2) That the learned trial circuit judge by failing, neglecting or omitting to take the plea of the accused person, when the charges were altered or amended, acted contrary to section 176 (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) of Act 30.

(3) That the learned circuit judge was wrong in convicting the appellant on the stealing counts which were based on the amended charges of forgery.”

Learned counsel in argui