GH - NKANSAH v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.

The appellant was convicted by the Assin Fosu District Court, Grade II on 19 December 1977, of the offence of selling above the controlled price contrary to sections 2 (1) and 3 (1) of the Price Control Decree, 1974 (N.R.C.D. 305). She was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour and ordered to refund to the complainant an amount of ¢2.40, being double the illegal profit. Her appeal is against both her conviction and sentence.

Originally two grounds of appeal were filed but at the hearing of the appeal the only serious point raised in the additional ground of appeal was strenuously argued by the appellant's counsel. It reads, "The charge as stated in the statement of offence did not disclose any triable offence."

In his submission learned counsel urged that omission of a reference to the contravened executive instrument namely, the Price Control (Maximum Prices) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order, 1975 (E.I. 50 of 1975), in the statement of offence, rendered the statement incurably defective. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant which flowed from a defective statement of offence was a nullity and ought to be set aside. He placed much reliance on the case of Republic v. Dufa [1976] 2 G.L.R. 18. In short, counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the omission of the offending executive instrument in the statement of offence, the appellant was charged and convicted of a non-existing offence, and accordingly, his conviction on her plea of guilty should be quashed.

In reply, the learned senior state attorney contended that the inclusion of the executive instrument in the statement of offence [p.186] would have been desirable but not essential. He explained that an essential legal requirement is that an accused person should be informed sufficiently of the offence charged in a simple language understood by him, and here, there is evidence that the charge was read and explained to the appellant in Twi language, which is her mother tongue. The omission therefore of reference to the executive instrument in the statement of offence is a mere technical error which has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice. He drew the court's attention to the decision in the case of Asamoah v. The Republic [1973] 1 G.L.R. 186 which he submitted is supportable in law and ought to be followed in this appeal.

The charge preferred against the appellant described the offence with complete accuracy in the statement

JUDGMENT OF OWUSU-ADDO J.

The charge preferred against the appellant described the offence with complete accuracy in the statement

NKANSAH v. THE REPUBLIC

Areas of Law

JUDGEMENT