JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.
The criminal proceedings in this case commenced at the Circuit Court, Cape Coast, but by an order of transfer signed by his lordship the Chief Justice, the case was transferred to this court to be summarily tried.
The accused, Abraham Quansah, is charged with corruption by a public officer: contrary to section 239 (1) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of offence as they appear on the charge sheet are that:
"No. 1203 GC/2 Abraham Quansah on 1 November 1966 at Asikuma and within the jurisdiction of this court, being a public officer, to wit: general police constable, under colour of your office, and in respect of the duties of your office, did receive the sum of ¢8.00 and permitted your conduct as a public officer to be influenced by foregoing the arrest of Jane Ayensu and Afua Ansowo for the crime of selling above the price control in consideration of the sum of ¢8.00."
When the charge was read I entertained certain qualms as to the propriety of the inclusion of and the relevance of the five words "under colour of your office." The section under which the accused is charged reads: "239. (1) Every public officer or juror who commits corruption, or wilful oppression, or extortion, in respect of the duties of his office, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." Corruption by a public officer is explained in section 240 in the following terms:
"A public officer, juror, or voter is guilty of corruption in respect of the duties of his office or vote, if he directly or indirectly agrees or offers to permit his conduct as such officer, juror, or voter to be influenced by the gift, promise, or prospect of any valuable consideration to be received by him, or by any other person, from any person whomsoever."
[p.237]
It is obvious that the words "under colour of his office" do not constitute an essential element in the crime of corruption. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Wemah (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 41 at p. 43, the Court of Appeal had the following to say:
"Trial courts often find some difficulty in deciding whether the particulars of the offence alleged, or the facts, amount either to corruption or extortion. In our view there is no need for such difficulty. The test to be applied is as follows: if the particulars of offence or acts complained of are committed in respect of the duties of an office, or in other words, committed in the performance of the duties of an office, then clearly the offence contemplated is corr
