–
KWAME ABOA
V.
THE QUEEN
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1953
2PLR/1953/21 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1953/21 (WACA)
(1953) XIV WACA PP. 252 – 253
LEX (1953) – XIV WACA 252 – 253
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
WILSON, C.J., GOLD COAST
COUSSEY, J.A.
–
BETWEEN:
KWAME ABOAH — Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN — Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by convicted person: No. 79/52.
–
REPRESENTATION:
Koi Larbi — for Appellant
G. V. C. Young, Crown Counsel with Akiwumi — for the Crown
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Charge of Stealing against treasurer — Defence of general deficiency — How treated
–
CASE SUMMARY
The appellant was a Native Authority Treasurer; he collected revenue and paid out salaries and the like. At a checking of his accounts there was a shortage in his cash of a certain amount, which he admitted was missing but could not explain why. At his trial he admitted on oath that at the checking he was short of that amount but denied stealing it. He was convicted of stealing it and appealed on the ground that the evidence disclosed only a general deficiency.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN CCOURT OF APPEAL
Held that:
Appellant in effect admitted that that amount ought to have been in his safe, so it was not a case of general deficiency.
Case cited:-
Rex v. Morris, 24 Cr. App. R. 105.
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following judgment was delivered:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
The appellant was convicted of stealing the sum of £446 13s. 3d. the property of the Akim Abuakwa Native Authority Treasury to which he had access by reason of his employment with that Treasury, an offence under section 271 (1) of the Criminal Code.
The appellant was the branch Treasurer at Suhum and as such was charged with the duty of receiving taxes such as market rents, tolls, licence fees and the like. He was also responsible for paying the salaries of employees of the State and for making other disbursements on the State’s behalf.
The senior Regional Administrator, one of whose duties it is to check the accounts of the Treasuries of Native Authorities, visited the appellant’s office in Suhum on the 9th March, 8th April, 4th May and 4th June, 1952, and on each occasion failed to find the appellant there. On 10th June he heard that the appellant was at Kibi, so he went there accompanied by the State Accountant and State Treasurer. They eventually found the appellant there and proceeded with him to Suhum where they carried out a check of his cash and accounts. The check disclosed a shortage in cash of £446 13s. 3d. which the appellant admitted was missing and in respect of which he was unable to give any explanation.
When he gave evidence on oath at the trial the appellant again admitted that when the check was made he was short of the amount in question, that it was not in his safe, but denied that he had stolen the money.
The three assessors expressed the opinion that he was guilty of the charge, an opinion shared by the learned trial Judge who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Appellant’s counsel has argued that the evidence only disclosed a general deficiency and that such evidence cannot support a conviction for stealing, and he cited as his authority for the proposition Rex v. Morris.
That case, however, only supports the proposition that where a person is charged with stealing, fraudulent conversion or embezzlement proof must be given of a specific appropriation of a particular sum of money, and that it is not sufficient in such cases to prove a general deficiency.
In the present case the appellant admitted that when the check was made he was short of the sum of £446 13s. 3d, and that he was unable to produce the money or give an account as to how it was lost. In effect he admitted that the sum in question ought- to have been in his safe, but that it was not there. In these circumstances we cannot see that the objection can be taken that this was a case of general deficiency and not stealing.
We are of the opinion there was evidence to support the charge and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
—