JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.A.
Ollennu J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The respondent was convicted by the District Court, Kumasi, on 4 September 1965, of the offence of possessing dangerous drugs, contrary to section 29 of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961 (Act 64), as amended by the Pharmacy and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Act 222), and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour and the drugs in question were confiscated. Against that conviction, he appealed to the High Court, Kumasi; the High Court allowed his appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and the order for confiscation, and thereupon acquitted and discharged him. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the prosecution appealed to this court on five original grounds, namely:
"(1) The learned High Court judge erred in holding that section 29 of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961 (Act 64), as amended by Act 222 does not create an absolute prohibition.
(2) His lordship erred in holding that the trial district magistrate, by equating lawful authority with lawful excuse, was confused in her thought and thereby failed adequately to examine the case of the appellant.
(3) His lordship erred in holding that the equation of lawful authority with lawful excuse went to the root of the whole case.
(4) It was wrong for the court to hold that the explanation of the appellant amounted to lawful excuse within the meaning of the Act.
(5) His lordship erred in holding that he could not find any difference between Wong Pooh Yin v. Public Prosecutor [1954] 3 All E.R. 31 and the case before him despite Dickins v. Gill [1896] 2 Q.B. 310 cited by counsel for the respondent", and one additional ground, namely;
"(a) The learned judge erred in law in holding that the possession of the drugs by the respondent was not in contravention of the statute and that the purpose for which the respondent had the drugs in his possession did constitute `lawful excuse' within the meaning of the statute."
[p.602]
A brief history of the case is as follows: Some time in July 1964 the respondent was charged with dishonestly receiving drugs, some cosmetics, toothpaste and tooth brushes. He was acquitted and discharged, and the drugs and other articles were returned to him upon an order of the court. In December 1963 and in April 1964, that is to say, before his arrest and trial in July 1964, he had applied for general licence under the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, 1961 (Act 64), to sell drugs,
