JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The appellant was charged with accepting a bribe after doing an act contrary to section 244 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of offence read as follows:
"On 16 July 1967 at Kankang in the Anyinam magisterial district and within the jurisdiction of this court, then being a public officer to wit health overseer did accept a goat after having taken action against one Yaa Ntiwah for allowing her goats to go astray and failed to prosecute such Yaa Ntiwah."
The trial magistrate found the appellant guilty of the charge and convicted him but in view of the appellant's fifteen years' unblemished record of service, he was fined N¢8.00 or one month's imprisonment with hard labour in default of payment of the fine.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that section 244 of Act 29 did not create an offence but only explained the law relating to the offence of corruption by a public officer. There is no doubt that section 244 does not create an offence. That section reads:
"244. If, after a person has done any act as a public officer, juror, or voter, he secretly accepts, or agrees or offers secretly to accept for himself or for any other person, any valuable consideration on account of such act, he shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, to have been guilty of corruption, within the meaning of this Chapter, in respect of that act before the doing thereof."
It is also clear from the wording of this section that the acceptance of a bribe by a public officer after doing an act is not an offence known to the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Section 244 is nothing more than a rule of evidence creating a presumption which is rebuttable. The offence of corruption by a public officer is contained in section 240 of Act 29 which reads:
“240. A public officer, juror, or voter is guilty of corruption in respect of the duties of his office or vote, if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever."
It follows that the offence of corruption is committed when a public officer "directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer . . .to be influenced by the gift, promise or prospect of any valuable consideration." The relevant charge which should have been framed against the appellant was under secti
