JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.
The appellant appeals against her conviction and sentence by the District Magistrate Grade II, Techiman. On Monday 28 February 1972 the appellant was arraigned before the District Court Grade II, Techiman, on a charge of selling above the controlled price as fixed by the Price Control (Maximum Prices) Order, 1969 (E.I. 135 of 1969), contrary to sections 1 and 2 of Control of Prices Act, 1962 (Act 113). The particulars of the charge are that the appellant sold one single cake of New Sunlight soap for 15p. instead of the maximum controlled price of 10p. scheduled for Techiman area and thus making an illegal profit of 5p. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and she was convicted and sentenced to a fine of ¢80.00 or three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Against this conviction and sentence the appellant appeals on the ground that the conviction is bad in law as she was charged on a repealed law and also that the sentence is excessive.
The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Control of Prices Act, 1962 (Act 113), under which the appellant was charged has specifically been repealed by section 17 (1) of the Price Control Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 17), which was made on 4 February 1972. At the time of the alleged offence the enabling Decree, therefore, was N.R.C.D. 17. Item 76 of the Schedule to the Price Control (Maximum Prices) Order, 1972 (E.I. 17 of 1972), which was made by virtue of the powers conferred on the Commissioner responsible for Trade by section 1 of N.R.C.D. 17, specifies that a single cake of New Sunlight soap shall sell in the Techiman area at 14p. and not at 10p. as charged. Counsel argued that as the charge was defective the offence-creating Act having been repealed, it could not form the basis of any conviction and the conviction and sentence should be set aside. Alternatively the sentence should be set aside as being excessive for, if it had been brought to the notice of the trial magistrate that the appellant only made an illegal profit of one pesewa, he might have been disposed to impose a more lenient sentence, not ruling out a caution and a discharge.
The learned senior state attorney conceded that at the time of the alleged offence Act 113 had been repealed by N.R.C.D. 17. However, he argued for the dismissal of the appeal as at the time of the appellant's arrest the offence of selling above the controlled price was, in spite of the wrong enactment quoted, known to th
