COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. ISAAC ANTW

JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J.

Korsah C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the circuit judge at Kumasi on the 14th February, 1961, of stealing by means of his employment, for that he during the months of May and June, 1958, stole cash the sum of £G92, the property of the Ashanti Turf Club, Limited, to which sum he had the means of access by reason of his office as a managing director of the Ashanti Turf Club, and was sentenced to five months' imprisonment with hard labour. At the trial the defence to the charge was that from time to time monies were received from the cashier and the amounts jotted down on paper and finally a voucher covering £G132 was prepared and signed by the appellant; the amount so received was used in the Turf Club business in which no receipts were taken and no receipts were in the circumstances necessary. By the appellant's service agreement he was authorised, inter alia, to:

"exercise and carry out all such powers and duties and shall observe all such directions and restrictions as the Board of Directors may from time to time confer or impose upon him but in default thereof the Managing Director shall control the general management of the business of the Company and do all other acts and things which he may consider necessary or conducive to the interests of the Company."

Learned counsel for the appellant argued ten grounds of appeal in two groups, viz: grounds one and two together, and also grounds three to ten together, and it will assist in understanding the case if we set these out in extenso. They are as follows:

"1. The trial circuit judge misdirected himself seriously as to the burden of proof and thus shifted the burden onto the defendant occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

[p.410]

Particulars of misdirection

Page 46, lines 1-6.

`Apart from these witnesses no evidence was led by the prosecution to disprove other payments and rightly in law shifted the burden of proof onto the defence to prove payments or to give an explanation as to payments reasonably probable of the truth.'

Page 51, lines 5-9.

`I have considered the case for the prosecution and also all aspects of the defence put forward by the accused as not reasonably probable.'

"2. That the misdirection was all the more grievous considering that the appellant was not charged with unlawful possession or receiving but stealing where the onus is on the prosecution throughout to establish that the accused stole, the burden of p