–
GERSHON KOFI SETRENA
V.
THE KING
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, GOLD COAST
ACCRA, 3RD JANUARY, 1951
2PLR/1951/57 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1951/57 (WACA)
(1951) XIII WACA PP. 132-133
LEX (1951) – XIII WACA 132-133
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
BLACKALL, P.
LEWEY, J.A.
COUSSEY, J.
–
BETWEEN:
GERSHON KOFI SETRENA – Appellant
AND
THE KING – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal from the Supreme Court, W.A.C.A. CR.APP. 71150
–
REPRESENTATION
Opoku Akyeampong — for the Appellant
G. C. V. Young, Crown Counsel — for the Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE:- Charges of stealing and false accounting – Submission no evidence of stealing accepted – Conviction for false accounting – Proof of intent in cases of false accounting.
–
CASE SUMMARY
The appellant was charged on count 1 with stealing cement and on count 2 for omitting to enter the receipt of cement with intent to facilitate the crime of stealing. At the close of prosecution case defence counsel successfully submitted there was no evidence of stealing. The Court, however, convicted the appellant on the second count.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the acquittal on the charge of stealing automatically negatived the finding of guilty of fraudulent false accounting, and relied on the case of Rex v. Peters Udo Akpabio (1). Counsel for the appellant also submitted that there was no evidence of intent on the second count.
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (Appeal dismissed) that:
1. The case of Rex v. Peters Udo Akpabio (1) lays down no general proposition that an acquittal on a count of stealing necessarily involves an acquittal on a charge of fraudulent false accounting. The evidence supported the conviction.
2. Intention is not capable of positive proof; it can only be inferred from overt acts. The Judge, after hearing the witnesses, came to the conclusion that the omissions to account were not accidental or due to carelessness, and there was sufficient evidence to arrive at such a finding. The conviction was upheld.
Case referred to:
(1) Rex v. Peters Udo Akpabio, 10 W.A.C.A. 181.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
BLACKALL, P.
The appellant was charged with stealing 60 bags of cement and also for omitting to enter the receipt of 60 bags of cement with intent to facilitate the crime of stealing.
At the close of the case for the prosecution the trial Court accepted the submission of counsel for the defence that there was no evidence of stealing, and the appellant was discharged on that count. He was, however, convicted on the other count. It is contended that his acquittal on the charge of stealing automatically negatives the finding of guilty on the charge of fraudulent false accounting. In support of this the case of Rex v. Peters Udo Akpabio (1) was cited. We do not think that case goes further than to say that in the particular circumstances an acquittal on the one count negatived the finding of guilty on the other. The Court could not have intended to lay down as a universal proposition that an acquittal on a charge of stealing necessarily involves an acquittal on a charge of fraudulent false accounting, for it is a matter of legal history that the offence of fraudulent false accounting was enacted because of the difficulties which occur in bringing home actual stealing to clerks who embark on a course of fraud by falsifying their employers’ books.
It was further submitted that there was no evidence of intent. As to this, intention is not capable of positive proof: it can only be implied from overt acts. In the present case the learned Judge having heard the witnesses came to the conclusion that these omissions to account were not accidental or due to carelessness, but were done with the intention of facilitating the offence of stealing.
In the view of this Court there was sufficient evidence for the Judge to arrive at such a finding and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
–