JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
The appellant was convicted of stealing ¢127.50, the property of one D. K. Annane on 9 May 1967 contrary to section 124 of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). Against this conviction the appellant has appealed to this court.
Counsel for appellant filed a number of grounds of appeal but the most important grounds were: (1) that the charge was bad for duplicity, and (2) that the conviction cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The particulars of offence read as follows:
“For that you Peter Anako Nonde, on 10 November 1966 at Tema in the Accra Magisterial District and within the jurisdiction of this court did steal 85 bags of cement value ¢127.50 the property of one D. K. Annane.”
The district magistrate Grade I, Tema, convicted him of stealing the sum of ¢127.50. The evidence of D. K. Annane, the first prosecution witness, clearly showed that the appellant on different dates in October 1966 recorded the correct number of bags of cement sold out to customers on the daily sales returns but in sending the original copies to the first prosecution witness he reduced the number of bags of cement sold. By so doing he was able to misappropriate on those diverse dates various sums of money amounting to ¢127.50 which represented the value of 85 bags of cement.
The evidence also showed that he forged the daily sales returns on 28 September 1966, 4 October 1966, 8 October 1966, 14 October 1966, 20 October 1966, 22 October 1966, 24 October 1966 and 25 October 1966; and was thus able to make use of the amount stated in the charge.
[p.121]
There is no doubt from the evidence that what the appellant stole was money which he received on the various dates on behalf of his master, D. K. Annane, and not bags of cement. It is also clear that he stole the specific sum of money on specific dates, and there can be no doubt also that each sum of money should have formed the subject-matter of a separate count. It is to be noted that section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), states:
“109. (1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall, subject to subsection (2), be a separate charge or count.
(2) Charges or counts for any offences may be joined in the same complaint, charge sheet, or indictment and tried at the same time if such charges or counts are founded on the same facts, or form or are a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character.”
It is incontrovertible that each theft
