JUDGMENT OF OKYERE J.
The accused was on 15 May 1989 charged in the district Court Grade I, Tamale with the offence of possessing forged documents, contrary to section 159 of the criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of the offence stated are:
"Issahaku Bawa alias Issahaque, agriculturalist aged 32 years: For that you on 11 May 1989, at Tamale in the Northern Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court, were found in possession of forged documents, to wit: one General Certificate of Education 'O' level certificate, one testimonial from Tamale Secondary School and one Tamale Secondary School result slip."
He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. It is against his conviction and sentence that he appealed to this court. The first ground of appeal is that:
"The conviction is ex facie erroneous in that the charge sheet together with the facts as presented by the prosecution and [p.589] recorded by the court does not disclose a triable offence and the appellant therefore pleaded guilty to a non-existent offence."
Mr. Mumuni, counsel for the appellant, argued that the charge should have been laid under section 166 of Act 29, but the intent for the possession of the documents was not disclosed in the particulars of the charge, or the facts given by the prosecution. He submitted therefore that mere possession of forged documents does not constitute an offence. He cited the cases of Osei Tutu v. The State [1965] G.L.R. 593; Watara v. The Republic [1974) 2 G.L.R. 24 and R v. Muambo (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 27, and said that the proceedings were a nullity because the facts did not disclose any triable offence.
The second ground of the appeal is: "The sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is excessive in all the circumstances and/or is unlawful." Dealing with the sentence he submitted that it was a nullity, but assuming that the conviction was lawful, it was too harsh since the maximum sentence a district court grade I is empowered to impose is two years, and the appellant was a first offender.
Mr. Agbolosu, counsel for the Republic, in opposing the appeal, said that there were sufficient grounds to support the charge because anybody going to Cuba is expected to possess a school certificate. Therefore, since the accused was found in possession of a forged G.C.E. certificate he must be deemed to have the intent in section 166 of Act 129. He submitted that the accused for
