Conviction for falsification of
accounts-Admissibility of
evidenceFraudulent entry by
innocent agent.
Held:
Rex v. Oliphant
followed and appeal dismissed.
The facts of the case are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment.
A. Sawyerr
(with him
Heward Mills)
for Appellant.
F. Dove
(with him
Lokko)
for Crown.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, c.J., NIGERIA, WEBBER,
C.].. SIERRA LEONE, AND BARTON,
J.
The accused, who was in the
employment of the United Africa
Company Limited as accounts
manager at the Company's branch
establishment at Nsawam, was
convicted by Petrides, C.J., at
the Assizes in Accra on three
counts
(If
an information for "
falsification of accounts,"
section 283 (1) 01 the Criminal
Code. The learned Chief Justice
found on the evidence that the
accused obtained two and a half
cases of kerosene from the
Company's store for his own
personal use and that, with
intent to defraud the Company,
he instructed one of the clerks
in the accounts office, named
Ofori, to make a false entry in
the stores transfer book
purporting to show that the
kerosene had been obtained from
the store on watchmen's expenses
account, and that Ofori, acting
innocently, carried out these
instructions, with the result
that the false entry in the
stores transfer book was
repeated in one of the ledgers,
ledger No.2, and also with the
result that a true entry showing
the kerosene as debited to
accused's private account was
omitted from ledger No.8. On
these findings the accused was
convicted on the first, third
and fifth counts of the
information. The grounds of
appeal which have been argued
before us are:-
•• 1. That the learned Chief
Justice misdirected himself in
the summing up when he said that
the accused had set up the
defence that there had been no
intent to defraud and that the
entries complained of were
accidental, and that he
therefore erred in admitting
evidence of other transactions;
and
•• 2. that there was no evidence
to support the convictions on
the third and fifth counts."
With regard to the first ground
of appeal, although it appears
from the record that the accused
denied in his evidence that he
gave instructions to Ofori to
debit the kerosene to watchmen's
expenses, a reference to the
cross-examination of the
witnesses for the prosecution
shows that it was suggested by
the defence that the entry made
by Ofori in the stores transfer
book was accidental and not
designed by the accused. We are
therefore of opinion that the
evidence of other transactions
was admissible, not only for
this reason but also for the
purpose of showing that the
transaction, the subject of the
charges, was done with intent to
defraud. We are also of opinion
that there was ample evidence
for the finding that the accused
received the kerosene for his
own personal use and
fraudulently procured a false
entry to be made by Ofori who
acted innocently and without any
knowledge that the entry was
otherwise than true. We are
therefore of opinion that
accused was rightly convicted on
the first count.
In
regard to the third count,
appellant's Counsel has
contended that, even assuming
there was evidence sufficient to
convict accused on the first
count, he could not be legally
convicted in respect of the
third count because the entry in
ledger No.2 was made by a clerk,
Acquah, who was not called as a
witness. We are of opinion that
there is no substance in this
submission; accused was the
accounts manager, and evidence
was produced showing the system
of the accounts which was
adopted by the firm; according
to that system ledger No.2
should show an entry similar to
the entry in the stores transfer
book; ledger No.2 was admitted
in evidence and the same entry
appears; the entry speaks for
itself, and there was no
necessity for the clerk who
wrote it to be called as a
witness.
In
Rex v. Oliphant,
1905, 2 K.B. 67, the accused was
charged with an offence under
section 1 of the Falsification
of Accounts Act, 1875, an
offence corresponding with the
offence under section 283 (1) of
the Criminal Code; in that case
it was contended on behalf of
the prisoner that the fact that
entries in the book were made by
a person other than the prisoner
prevented the case from coming
within the statute; it was held,
however, that the accused was
rightly convicted.
In
that case Lord Alverstone, C.J.,
referring to the judgment of
Lord Coleridge, C.J., in
Reg. v. Butt,
15 Cox, 564, stated that the
latter case was the authority
for showing that an omission of
an entry made by an innocent
person under the direction of
another is an omission by that
other within the meaning of the
statute.
In
the present case the accused, as
accounts manager, knew the
system of the accounts, and when
he gave Ofori the instructions
to debit the kerosene to the
watchmen's expenses account in
the stores transfer book he must
have known and intended that the
entry would necessarily involve
a corresponding entry in ledger
No.2 and the omission of a true
entry in ledger No.8. The false
entry in the stores transfer
book and the corresponding entry
in ledger No.2 and the omission
to enter in ledger No.8 are each
an offence within the meaning of
section 283 (1) of the Criminal
Code committed by the accused
through the innocent hands of
others.
For the above reasons we dismiss
the appeal.