Convictions for receiving stolen
property and preparation for
coining-latter quashed for
insufficient evidence-sentence
on former reduced.
It is not necessary to set out
the facts of this case.
Appellant in person.
A. R. TV. Sayle
for Crown.
The following judgment was
delivered:-
YATES, Acting C. J., GOLD COAST.
The accused was charged with
burglary, stealing and receiving
stolen goods and under these
three counts he was convicted on
the third count namely of
receiving stolen goods knowing
the same to have been stolen and
sentenced to two years
imprisonment with hard labour.
He was further charged with
"Preparation for coining current
silver coin contrary to section
14B (3) of the Criminal Code,"
the particulars of the offence
being that on a certain date he
had in his possession a mould
upon which there was then
impressed the parent resemblance
of both sides of the King's
current silver shilling of
Nigerian currency. He was
convicted under this fourth
count and sentenced to eight
years imprisonment "With hard
labour to run concurrently with
the former sentence.
From these convictions he has
appealed on four grounds namely:
-
(1) My house was searched in my
absence (under custody).
(2) The mould alleged to be
found in my trousers P09kct is
not a personal property of mine.
(3) No circumstantial evidence
to support my conviction.
(4) Misreception of the evidence
of the three Court Messengers
who searched my u.
There is no substance in any of
the grounds except ground 2 and
we are of opinion that he was
rightly convicted of receiving
stolen property.
The Court is unable to support
the conviction under section 148
(3) of the Criminal Cod~ on the
ground that it finds that the
evidence is insufficient to
support the charge. That there
must have been present in the
mind of the trial Judge some
doubt in the case is shown in
his summing up of the ease when
he states as follows: -
"The possibility presents itself
of the mould having been placed
there by some other person and
it struck me as somewhat strange
that it was not observed
immediately that the pocket
contained an article of some
weight and bulk".
We entirely agree with the trial
Judge but we cannot under-
stand why he should expect the
accused to suggest how the mould
came in his trousers pocket if
he did not put it there.
Although the discovery of
bellows, tools and charcoal in
the prisoner's lodging may be of
some importance in its bearing
on the question, this fact is
not conclusive of the guilt of
the accused. who alleges that he
is a goldsmith by trade.
The element of doubt still
remains and the accused must
have the benefit of it.
The conviction under section 148
(3) must therefore be quashed.
As to the sentence of two years
imposed by conviction under
third count we find the sentence
excessive.
All the accused was convicted of
was receiving stolen property
which the trial Judge assessed
at five shillings. We reduce
this sentence to one of six
months imprisonment with hard
labour.
