JUDGMENT OF ATA-BEDU J.
The appellants were tried by the District Magistrate, Grade I, Sogakofe, and convicted on a charge of extortion under section 239 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour each.
[p.433]
At the time of the alleged offence they were both escort police constables and were alleged to have demanded and obtained the sum of ¢10.00 from one Nuborbi Adzokatse under colour of their office. They were stationed at Adidome.
The grounds of appeal filed are:
(a) The judgment cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
(b) The learned magistrate failed to consider fully the defence of the appellants.
The case for the prosecution is that on 24 April 1971 the complainant, the first prosecution witness, travelled on the truck of the fifth prosecution witness to Adidome Poultry Farm to buy some chicks. On their arrival at Adidome at 8 a.m., they saw the appellants both in uniform near the police station. The appellants stopped the fifth prosecution witness and asked for his driving documents. These documents were handed to the first appellant by the driver, the fifth prosecution witness, who explained, in answer to the first appellant, that his handbrake was not functioning effectively because he could not obtain the necessary materials for the repair. The first appellant kept the driving documents and told the fifth prosecution witness to meet them (the appellants) at Adidome junction on their return from the poultry farm. On their return journey they saw the appellants standing under a mango tree at Adidome junction where the fifth prosecution witness stopped his vehicle, alighted and walked up to them and demanded the return of his documents to him. It is at this stage that, according to the fifth prosecution witness, the first appellant demanded from him some drink before he would give back the documents. When the fifth prosecution witness said he had only one cedi the first appellant said that was not enough and demanded ¢10.00 from the fifth prosecution witness, who remained with the appellants for about three hours pleading with them to accept the one cedi he had on him while the first prosecution witness was waiting in the vehicle for the fifth prosecution witness. Realising that his chicks were dying as a result of the delay, the first prosecution witness went up to the fifth prosecution witness and demanded to know the reason for the delay. The first appellant, it is allege
