MUKTARI v. THE STATE
1966
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- AKUFO-ADDO C.J.
- AZU CRABBE
- LASSEY JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
1966
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was charged with and convicted of obtaining G500 by fraud by false pretences. His appeal argued inadequate evidence for the conviction and improper sentencing procedure. The court found the evidence insufficient for fraud but adequate for stealing, substituting the conviction accordingly. The original excessive sentence imposed by the High Court without proper inquiry was replaced with a five-year imprisonment. The appeal against conviction was dismissed but the sentence was varied.
JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.
Azu Crabbe J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant in this case was charged before the District Magistrate's Court, Accra New Town, with the offence of fraud by false pretence contrary to section 131 of the Criminal Code, 1960.1 The particulars of the offence were stated as follows:
"For that you Mallam Alhaji Muktari, on or about the 22nd day of July, 1963, at Nima in the Accra Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court, with intent to defraud did obtain cash the sum of £G500 from one Emmanuel Annan by falsely pretending to the said Emmanuel Annan that you were a Mallam and that if he could give you the said sum of £G500 you would bless the said sum spiritually and buy for him a lorry with which he Emmanuel Annan would work and succeed and be free from misfortune, whereas in truth and in fact, you well knew at the time of making such statement to be false.”
One other person (hereinafter referred to as the second accused) who stood trial with the appellant on a second charge of aiding and abetting the appellant was discharged and acquitted during the hearing after the prosecution had withdrawn the charge against him. But the trial of the appellant continued, and he was in the end found guilty of the charge and convicted accordingly.
The record of the proceedings shows that the appellant, having been convicted, admitted "two previous convictions for fraud by false pretences, three for stealing, one for conspiracy and one for deceit of a public officer." Therefore, acting under section 3 (1) of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963,2 the learned district magistrate committed the appellant to the High Court for sentence. The proceedings in the High Court are recorded as follows:
"Accused in court.
Mr. Ahlijah for the State.
State attorney applies to court under section 1 of Act 192 and refers to previous convictions of accused as appearing in record of proceedings.
By court:
Accused sentenced to twenty years, preventive custody with productive hard labour.
(Sgd.) S. Asafu-Adjaye
Judge."
[p.699]
The appellant has now appealed to this court against his conviction, as he was entitled to do by virtue of section 3 (2) of the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for the appellant abandoned the original grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and was granted leave to argue only two additional grounds she had filed on behalf of the app