COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. SENCHEREY

JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG. C.J.

Van Lare Ag. C.J. he delivered the judgment of the Court:

We allowed this appeal at the last sitting, and now proceed to give our reasons. The appellant was convicted at the Magistrate’s Court, Kumasi, before Mr. Beckley, District Magistrate, upon a count charging him with the offence of stealing cash the sum of £45 10/-, the property of one Augustine Mensah ,contrary to section 287 (1) of the Criminal Code.

This count was bad for duplicity, for from the evidence at the trial there appear to have been allegations of two separate and distinct offences, and they have been charged in one count instead of being made the subject of two counts, as the law requires. It is very trite learning in criminal pleadings that no more than one offence may be charged in any one count. Section 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides as follows:

(His lordship read the section, and proceeded:—)

The cash alleged to have been stolen was made up of two separate and distinct sums, £G20 and £G25 10/- respectively, given to the appellant by the complainant on two different occasions. The evidence for the prosecution is that on a certain date, in view of what the complainant Augustine Mensah had heard from his son Kwame and also from another Mensah, the complainant left his money, a sum of £G20,. with the appellant, from whom he expected to buy a spraying machine. The appellant went away, promising to return with the machine and with a permit in order to effect the sale. He returned without it, saying that the permit was not ready. This was one exercise. At a later date, and on the strength of what the other Mensah had told him, the complainant gave a further sum of £G25 10/- to the appellant to make up the money for the purchase of the spraying machine. It was expected that the balance of the purchase price, in the sum of £G4 10/-, was to be paid on delivery of the spraying machine to complete the sale. It turned out that the sale had not been completed, as the complainant failed to make delivery. The matter was eventually reported to the Police, and in respect of these facts the appellant was charged with the offence of stealing.

The appellant, who has been unrepresented throughout, cannot be presumed to know the niceties of criminal pleadings, and he could not therefore be expected to object to the defective form of the charge preferred against him. The evidence was such that it might have been possible for the appellant to have been convic