GH - REPUBLIC v. MAIKANKAN AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.

Azu Crabbe C.J. delivered the ruling of the Court. Section 95 (3) (b) of the Courts. Act, 1971 (Act 372), under which Aboagye J. has stated this case for our consideration reads as follows: "(3) A judge of the High Court . . . may at any time before judgment - (b) . . . on the trial of any criminal case . . . reserve for the consideration of the Court of Appeal on a case stated by him any question of law which may arise in the trial."

The case stated is as follows:

"The ten accused persons were on 20 May 1971, committed by His Worship Mr. E. T. A. Torto, District Magistrate, to the High Court, Accra for trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud contrary to sections 23 (1) and 131 of the Criminal Code, 1960; [p.223] defrauding by false pretences contrary to section 131 of the Criminal Code, 1960; forgery of document contrary to section 158 of the Criminal Code, 1960; uttering forged document, contrary to section 169 of the Criminal Code, 1960; and making illegal payments outside Ghana contrary to section 6 and paragraph 5 (1) of Part II, Exchange Control Act, 1961.

On 5 September 1972, the first, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth accused persons were acquitted and discharged on all charges against them following a submission of no case made on their behalf. The second, third, sixth and tenth accused persons were called upon to answer some of the charges preferred against them. On 28 November 1972, a subpoena was filed on behalf of the second accused for service on nine persons to give evidence on behalf of the second accused. On the same date another subpoena was filed for service on ten persons to give evidence on behalf of the third accused.

On 1 December 1972, copies of the subpoenas filed on behalf of the second accused was served on three of his proposed witnesses, namely, Abi Babarinde, J. A. Mingle and Alhaji Imoro. On the same date copies of the subpoena filed on behalf of the third accused was served on three of his proposed witnesses, namely, S. Ade Okedina, A. A. Sengekye and Asare Lartey.

On 4, 5 and 6 December 1972, the second accused gave evidence in his defence. At the close of his evidence his counsel Mr. J. B. Quashie-Idun, informed the court that none of his witnesses (including those served with subpoenas) had turned up. This was checked up and found to be correct. Upon counsel's application warrants were issued for the arrest of the three witnesses who had been served with the subpoenas but the

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.

The case stated is as follows:

REPUBLIC v. MAIKANKAN AND OTHERS

Areas of Law