DONKOR ALIAS BOATENG v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.

The appellant was arraigned and tried before the Circuit Court, Sunyani, on two counts for smuggling contrary to section 49 (1) (e) of the Customs and Excise Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 114). The particulars of the first count disclosed that on or about 17 June 1974, at Sunyani the appellant with intent to defraud the Republic of customs duty was concerned in concealing prohibited goods, namely, 124 pieces of 720 Afro wigs. The particulars of the second count also showed that the appellant, on the same date and at the same place and with the same intent was concerned in concealing restricted goods, namely, fifteen packets containing 90 T shirts. The appellant was found guilty by the trial circuit judge who convicted her on each count and sentenced her to a fine of ¢5,000.00 or five years' imprisonment with hard labour on each count with an order that the fines be non-cumulative and the sentences concurrent. He further made the following order:

"The 124 wigs and 90 T shirts are hereby forfeited. It is hereby directed that the registrar of this court and the senior police officer in charge of the court should arrange for the sale, and a certificate as to the sale be issued and filed in the record book. The proceeds of sale should be paid to government chest."

The appellant has appealed against the said conviction and sentence on only one ground, viz. "The prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused person as required in a criminal prosecution."

The case for the prosecution against the appellant, briefly, was that on the named date a police driver called Emmanuel Kwadwo Koranteng, the first prosecution witness was on his way to the Sunyani lorry park. He saw a boy, the second prosecution witness pulling a truck which carried a basket and a handbag. He challenged the boy as to the ownership of the basket and the handbag and he said the owner was at the market. The appellant came to the scene and claimed ownership of them and she further told him that the basket contained salted fish. The first prosecution [p.52] witness held the basket and found it to be lightly weighted and so he asked the appellant to follow the truck to the police station where the contents of the basket would be examined. The appellant started to beg him and so he suspected that the basket did not contain salted fish and he insisted that she should go to the police station with him. At this stage the appellant said she had left her child in fro