SEIDU v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.

On 11 June 1975 the appellant was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Tamale, charged with the following offences:

"Count One

Statement of Offence

Issue of false cheque, contrary to section 313A (1) (b) of the Criminal Code 1960, (Act 29), as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 160).

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Amadu Seidu, farmer, on 22 January 1974 at Tamale in the Northern Circuit did issue cheque No. 355243/469095 dated 22nd January 1974 for ¢3,000.00 in respect of your account with the Barclays Bank, Tamale, when you had no reasonable ground to believe that there were adequate funds in the account to pay the amount specified on the cheque within the normal course of banking business.

[p.291]

Count Two

Statement of Offence

Issue of false cheque, contrary to section 313A (1) (c) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 160).

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Amadu Seidu, farmer, on 22 January 1974 at Tamale in the Northern Circuit with intent to defraud Mencilo Co., Ltd. did stop cheque No. 355243/469095 dated 22 January 1974 for ¢3,000.00 which had been previously issued by you."

He was tried and convicted on the second count on 5 November 1975 and was sentenced to a prison term of six months. He had earlier on been acquitted and discharged on the first count on a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution’s case.

It is from the said conviction and sentence that he has appealed to this court on five main grounds which read as follows:

"(1) That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial.

(2) That the circuit judge erred in law in basing his conviction mainly on slight variations in the evidence adduced by the accused.

(3) That the learned circuit judge failed to direct himself that the burden of proof rested on the prosecution and not the defence.

(4) That the prosecution failed to prove intent to defraud and the learned circuit judge erred in law in holding that the same was proved.

(5) That the sentence of six months’ imprisonment is excessive having regard to the circumstances of the crime."

The prosecution's statement of the facts of the case as presented against the appellant which is fully set out in the judgment of the learned trial judge read as follows:

"The prosecution's case briefly is that the accused is a director of Mencilo Co., Ltd. and the first prosecution witne