JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON J.
During this trial Detective Sergeant Emmanuel Agyekum of the Ghana Police Force stationed at Nkoranza sought to tender in evidence a gun. His evidence concerning the gun was, “This is the gun I took from Kofi Fofie. It has since been in my custody. I tender it in evidence." Mr. Yaw Manu took objection to the gun being admitted in evidence on the ground that the gun ought properly to have been kept in the custody of the court as required by section 182 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), which subsection reads:
“(4) The prosecution shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, deliver into the custody of the Court all documents and things which, according to the summary of evidence, are intended to be put in evidence at the trial.”
Mr. Ossei argued that whatever order was made in the committing court would be in the record of that court and that as the gun was mentioned as a prospective exhibit, it was to be implied that court ordered the contrary, and that it was the duty of the registrar of the lower court to see to it that the order was carried out.
However much I may sympathise with Mr. Ossei I cannot accept his argument. If there was an order made before the committing court that order formed part of the committal proceedings and should have been before this court. Section 182 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960, is mandatory in its terms and requires all documents and things intended to be put in evidence by the prosecution to be delivered registrar of the committing court, unless the court otherwise directs. It appears to me that the latter provision was meant to cover such things as from their nature or bulk could not be conveniently kept by the registrar of the committing court. A cap gun is not either from its nature or bulk such a thing as could not be conveniently kept by the registrar of the lower court and I am not surprised that the magistrate did not make an order that it should not be delivered to the registrar of that court. At all events, there is nothing to show that such an order was made. The magistrate was aware that the gun was intended to be put in evidence, and it cannot be inferred from his failure to make an order with respect to it that he ordered it to be kept otherwise than in accordance with the requirement of section 182 (4) of Act 30. In the absence of a specific order the prosecution were in duty bound to deliver the gun to the registrar of the lower court.
In Republic v. Maikan
