KPEKATA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.

Blay J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant in this case was charged and tried before the Circuit Court, Tamale, on two counts, one of extortion by a public officer, contrary to section 239 (1) of the Criminal Code 1960,1 and one of defrauding by false pretences, contrary to section 131 of the Criminal Code, 1960.2 He was convicted on both counts and sentenced to a day's imprisonment plus a fine of £G150 or twelve months imprisonment with hard labour on each. The fines were non-cumulative and the sentences concurrent. From this conviction and sentence he has appealed to this court on eleven original grounds of appeal to which five more were added by leave in this court. At the hearing of the appeal it was pointed out to the learned senior state attorney that the two charges appear to be contradictory, in that if the appellant did demand the amount he is alleged to have obtained under colour of his office as a works foreman and a public officer, then he could not at the same time be charged with obtaining the same amount under false pretences so as to warrant a separate charge and conviction under section 131 of the Criminal Code. Learned senior state attorney rightly conceded this and said he could not support the conviction of the appellant on both counts by the learned circuit court judge but that he could only support one. However as the sentences imposed were concurrent and non-cumulative, the hearing of the appeal proceeded in respect of the conviction on the charge of extortion.

The case against the appellant was that he, as a public officer, to wit, as works foreman of the Department of Social Welfare and Community Development, at Sinibariga village near Bawku in the Northern and Upper Regions, did under colour of his office, obtain for himself cash the sum of £G60 from one Barike Akurugu, chief of Sinibariga village, knowing that he was not lawfully authorised to do so. In support of the case against the appellant, the prosecution called eight witnesses in all. Four of these witnesses, the first, second, third and fifth, gave evidence about two visits to their village by the appellant. At the first visit the appellant had been introduced to the chief of the village as the officer who was to help them in their community development work, especially in the construction and repair of the road leading to the village. On the second visit the appellant asked for the sum of £G60 to enable him to buy petrol [p.