This is an appeal from the judgments of the District Magistrate, Sekondi. The judgments appealed from are in three separate cases (cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1965) tried at Half Assini on the same day. The charges in case No. 25, case No. 26 and count 1 of case No. 27 were all under section 237 of the Criminal Code, 1960,1 and the facts are almost identical save that the three offences took place at different times and at different places. The first took place at Half-Assini on 28 January 1965 (case No. 26), the second on 29 January 1965 at Bonyere (case No. 27) and the last on 30 January 1965 at Takinta (case No. 25).
The staple in the charges was that the two accused persons pretended to be public officers and under that assumed character did obtain certain articles from the complainants in these matters. The articles involved are ordinary daily needs, e.g. reels of black cotton thread, Atwood Bitters, bottles of lavender, pieces of cotton prints, shirts and spectacles. The total value of the goods obtained in the first of the cases was; £G10 15s., in the second £G6 and in the third 12s.
The second count in case No. 27 charged the appellants with extortion contrary to section 151 (1) of the Criminal Code, 1960.
Under their assumed character the accused were said to have:
"threatened one Mozu Kwame of Bonyere as having sold one piece of cloth above control price and as such were making a case against him and under such assumed colour obtained for yourselves the sum of £G8 from the said Mozu Kwame . . . which you knew you were not lawfully authorised to obtain."
[p.395]
The accused persons who are described in the charges as labourers seem to have gone on a spending spree in the locality of Half-Assini after receiving their pay for the month of January 1965. The explanation of the accused persons as appearing in case No. 25, and which the prosecution regarded as "unreasonable" was that "the traders deliberately reduced the price of their commodities for them as they resembled policemen." The accused pleaded guilty to all the charges and were convicted and sentenced accordingly. They appealed against their sentences. The second ground of their appeal reads:
"That the exhibits, the articles bought or purchased on sale from the various traders were paid for and as such was invested with ownership and possession upon delivering of goods and transaction completed: essence of fact which was neglected or concealed at trial."
The grounds of appeal put m
