JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.
On 21 February 1972 the appellant who had been charged with stealing was convicted by a Kumasi circuit court and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The case for the prosecution was briefly this: the room of Abudulai Adam, the first prosecution witness, was broken into during the night of 8 February 1972 when he had gone to visit his brother and his wireless set, wrist watch and accordion were stolen. On the following day at about 4 p.m., he went to a nearby shop to buy cigarettes where he saw the appellant playing his missing accordion. He asked the appellant how he came by the accordion and he replied that he had picked it up from the ground. He therefore invited the appellant to the Manhyia Police Station. The appellant having been charged with stealing the first prosecution witness's missing articles made a statement, exhibit A, to the effect that he was going to a public lavatory at Ashanti New Town at about 5.30 a.m. on 9 February 1972, when he saw the accordion lying on the ground. He therefore picked it up and took it to his brother's shop. He denied having stolen it from the first prosecution witness's room. In his defence he relied on his statement, exhibit A.
Against his conviction and sentence the appellant has appealed to this court relying on the additional grounds of appeal filed on his behalf in the following terms:
[p.289]
"(1) The learned circuit court judge misdirected himself in law in convicting the accused when he stated that, the law is that when a person picks up a thing knowing it to belong to somebody and decides to keep it he has stolen it.
(2) The judgment is unjust and unreasonable having regard to evidence.”
In his argument the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the definition of stealing by finding as set out in section 127 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and emphasized that the facts adduced by the prosecution failed to establish or prove the offence created by that section. Counsel further expounded the law relating to stealing by finding as decided in the cases of R. v. Thurborn (1849) 1 Den. 387, C.C.R.; R. v. Glyde (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 103, C.C.R. and R. v. Knight (1871) 12 Cox C.C. 102, C.C.R. The learned state attorney however urged that the case against the appellant falls under section 127 (b) of the Criminal Code, 1960, and explained that she was dwelling her submission on the appellant's own admission made to the effect that he knew that the acc
