ASTU CHARAN KOLE v. THE REPUBLIC

YAW APPAU, J.A.

The appellant in this appeal Astu Charan Kole, was arraigned for trial before the High Court,

Sekondi on two counts of falsification of accounts and stealing contrary to sections 140 and

124 (1) of Act 29/60. The prosecution called eight (8) witnesses in support of the charges

against the appellant and closed its case on 27/08/2007. The trial court, at the close of the

prosecution’s case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established a prima

facie case against the appellant so he had a case to answer, thereby calling on him to open

his defence. The moment the Court below announced that the appellant had a case to

answer, his counsel got to his feet and informed the judge that he wanted to make a

submission of no case since the prosecution could not establish a prima facie case against

the appellant at the close of its case. The trial court disagreed with counsel for the appellant

that the prosecution could not establish a prima facie case and refused to allow him to make

any submissions of no case to answer. The contention of the Court below was that it was of

the view that the prosecution had satisfied it with enough evidence for which the appellant

should be made to tell his side of the story. The Court below then called on the appellant to

open his defence to the charges. The appellant, dissatisfied with that decision, appealed to

this Court.

One may ask; what did the appellant appeal against?

The appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on 2/10/2007 and it is titled: -

“NOTICE OF APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO MAKE A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE”

The grounds of appeal were three in all. They read:

a. The trial judge erred in failing to consider the reasons for the submission

of no case.

b. The trial judge erred in refusing to allow the submission of no case.

c. The order made was against the weight of evidence.

The appellant filed his written submissions in support of the appeal on 12/02/2008 while the

respondent filed its submissions on 26/02/2008. Basically the appeal has two dimensions.

The main reason for the appeal, as was clearly captured in the ‘Notice of Appeal’ filed on

2/10/2007 was the refusal of the Court below to allow counsel for the appellant to make a

submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution’s case. That accounts for

ground (b) which reads: - “The trial judge erred in refusing to allow the submission

of no case.”

The other dimension of the appeal was captured by grou