LUTTERODT v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.

Ollennu J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the Circuit Court, Accra, of fraud by false pretences. The charge against him alleged that he, "with intent to defraud, did obtain cash the sum of £G537, ten pieces print at £G60, one live sheep value £G5, several assorted trinkets at £G18 and bottles of gin, whisky, schnapps and a yam value £G6 18s., all to the total value of £G626 18s. from one Allen Malm by means of certain false pretences to wit: you did falsely pretend to the said Allen Malm that the money with which she was trading had become spiritually unclean and you could make it to become clean for her and by said false pretences you succeeded in obtaining the said amount and goods to the value of £G626 18s. from the said Allen Malm whereas in fact and truth you well knew at the time that you could not purify the money as you so falsely pretended."

Against his conviction he appealed to this court on three grounds, and with leave of the court three supplementary grounds were filed and [p.431] argued at the hearing while the original grounds were abandoned. The grounds argued were:

"(1) That the charge preferred against the appellant was bad for duplicity,

(2) That the judgment of the learned circuit judge was wrong in law having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial, and

(3) The learned circuit judge failed to consider fairly and adequately the defence of the appellant."In support of the first ground, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of the complainant, where she gave particulars of the representations made, and the payments of moneys and delivery of goods she made to the appellant; that evidence tends, on the face of it, to give the impression that the different sums of money were paid at various times, and that the articles mentioned in the charge were not all delivered at one time, and that each such payment or delivery was induced by separate representations made by the appellant. Counsel cited Commissioner of police v. Sencherey1 to support his submission that even though a charge may appear to conform with the mandatory provisions of section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19602 yet if the evidence disclosed that more than one distinct offence are in fact alleged in the one charge, the court should hold that the charge is bad for duplicity and quash the conviction. Commissioner of Police v. Sencherey (supra) is a case in which a man was con