JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The appellant was charged with the offence of stealing four pieces of wax print valued at N¢76.80 the property of one Araba Kakraba. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge but after hearing evidence, the trial magistrate at the Cape Coast District Court Grade I found the appellant guilty and convicted him and sentenced him to one day's imprisonment and a fine of N¢180.00 or in default nine months' imprisonment with hard labour and ordered that N¢80.00 should be given to the complainant.
[p.552]
When the appeal came on for hearing, Mr. Sarpong, learned counsel for the appellant, informed the court that the certified true copy of the proceedings supplied to him indicated that the appellant was convicted of dishonestly receiving. After reading the certified true copy of the record of proceedings supplied to the court, I detected that the appellant was convicted of stealing, the original offence with which the appellant was charged. Mr. Amui, the learned state attorney, agreed that there was a conflict as to what the trial magistrate found . . .
The main question I have to answer is what was pronounced in court? I think what constitutes a judgment in summary trials is clearly provided in section 177 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), as follows:
"(1) The Court, having heard what each party has to say and the witnesses and evidence so adduced, shall consider and determine the whole matter and may either convict the accused and pass sentence upon or make an order against him according to law or acquit him, as the case may be, and the Court shall give its decision in the form of an oral judgment, and shall record the decision briefly together with the reasons for it, where necessary . . .
(3) The conviction or order may, if required, be afterwards drawn up and shall be signed by the Court making the conviction or order, or by the clerk or other officer of the Court."
It follows from the above subsections that the judgment should be orally delivered in court and may afterwards be drawn up for signature by the court. In my view it becomes obvious that only what is pronounced in court may afterwards be drawn up. There is no licence to draw up an order substantially different from the verdict pronounced in court. The prosecuting officer's affidavit discloses that the trial magistrate found the appellant guilty of dishonestly receiving. The trial magistrate has been informed by the state attorney of what t
