JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.
The two above-named respondents were tried by his honour judge A. E. Sampson, circuit judge at Acherensua. They both pleaded guilty and were duly convicted by the court on 12 June 1968. The particulars of their offence as disclosed on the charge sheet were as follows:
"(1) James Akwasi Bofah, produce clerk, (2) Kwame Meduo, cashier respectively of the State Cocoa Marketing Board, Hwidiem: for that you between the months of September 1967 and January 1968 at Hwidiem in the Brong-Ahafo circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, did steal cash the sum of N¢2,014. 69, the property of the State Cocoa Marketing Board."
Dissatisfied with the sentences imposed by the trial circuit judge, the State had lodged this appeal against sentence only. Two grounds of appeal were filed and argued and these were:
[p.622]
(1) That the judge erred in law in imposing what amounts to a double punishment.
(2) That the judge's exercise of his power of punishment was injudicious and therefore wrong in law.
The record of the proceedings before the circuit judge as typed and presented to this court was attacked or challenged by both the state attorney and Dr. Ohene-Djan, counsel for the two respondents as being inaccurate. Both counsel contended that the learned circuit judge imposed in respect of each of the accused persons a double sentence. The circuit judge on convicting each accused person first of all made an order that each should sign a bond in the sum of N¢500.00 in his own recognisance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years or in default to go to prison for twelve months with hard labour. After this first order the circuit judge proceeded to make a second order cautioning and discharging each of the accused persons. This latter order has, however, been omitted from the appeal record. After reading the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Daniel Boateng, who prosecuted the case and examining the original record book tendered by Mr. Kitson-Mills, the circuit court registrar, I am satisfied that the "caution and discharge" order was also made but later cancelled by the trial circuit judge. In his evidence before this court, Mr. Kitson-Mills explained that it was some five days later on, during the compilation of the appeal proceedings that the circuit judge himself cancelled and initialled it, and authorised that it be deleted from the copy of the proceedings. The learned circuit judge failed to appreciate that an o
