ANNOH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C

The appellant was tried and convicted by the circuit judge, Kumasi, on nine counts of stealing. The subject-matter of the charges are nine separate sums of money, the value, in some cases, of a number of local council rolls of tickets of four penny and sixpenny denominations issued to the appellant and sold by him to the public, and in others, amounts shown on the council's counterfoil receipt books as collected by the appellant on behalf of the council, and in each case not accounted for by him.

The appellant did not give any evidence on his own behalf at his trial, and the whole case therefore rested upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution which included oral evidence alleging that the appellant had admitted to the chairman of the council, the sixth prosecution witness in the presence of three prosecution witnesses, namely, the second, fourth and fifth prosecution witnesses, that he misappropriated the various sums of money; it also included a statement the appellant made to the police when he was charged with the offences and cautioned by the police, in which he denied the charges and the allegation that he had admitted to the chairman of the council and other persons that he had misappropriated the moneys.

The learned circuit judge in his judgment gave consideration to each of the nine counts upon which the appellant stood charged separately, and dealt with what he thought were the relevant issues raised. He, however, in the course of his fairly long judgment, made a statement which in our opinion warranted some of the criticisms which counsel for the appellant, levelled against his judgment.

[p.308]

The appeal was brought and argued upon the following three grounds:

"(1) Because the trial circuit judge was wrong in law in refusing to uphold the submission of no case at the close of the case for the prosecution.

(2) Because the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in support of the charge. The appellant had been charged with stealing general counter-foil receipt books and rolls of market receipts but the evidence adduced was to the effect that the appellant had stolen certain sums of money and not receipt books or market tickets.

(3) Because the prosecution failed to prove its case.”

On ground (1) it was submitted that the circuit judge misdirected himself when he said that, "The accused never gave evidence in court, nor did he make any statement to the police when he was arrested and therefore the court c