S v Amponsah (CC07/57/24) [2024] GHADC 704 (11 November 2024)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ASOFAN SITTING BEFORE H/W NANCY TEIKO SEARYOH (MRS.) ON MONDAY THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 SUIT NO.CC07/57/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS: SAMUEL BLESS AMPONSAH JUDGEMENT The Accused Person has been charged with one count of stealing contrary to section 124 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Stealing is defined in Section 125 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) thus: “A person who steals dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner”. Facts of the case as presented by the prosecution is that the complainant, Bridget Appiah is a Twenty Seven (27) year old civilian employee of the Ghana Armed Forces whilst the Accused, Samuel Bless Amponsah is a Twenty Two (22) year old Mobile Money employee of the complainant. Both are residents of Dome Pillar two. The Accused Page 1 of 6 Person was employed by the complainant on the 26th February, 2024 to manage her Mobile Money shop for her. On the 4th March, 2024 the Complainant during the reconciliation of the accounts of her Mobile Money Merchant number after close of work detected a shortage of Eleven Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵11,700.00) out of Fifteen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵15,000.00) she invested in the business. The statements of accounts of the Mobile Money Merchant number obtained from MTN revealed that Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵9,700.00) of the Eleven Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵11,700.00) was transferred from the Merchant line to Accused Person’s Personal Mobile Money number 0244215926. A report was made and the accused was arrested to assist in investigation. In the course of investigations it was discovered that, on the same day the Accused Person took an amount of Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵3,000.00) to a different Mobile Money vendor by name Gloria Marfo and deposited same into his Mobile Money wallet. After investigation, Accused Person was charged per the charge sheet and put before this honourable Court. In criminal suits, the evidential burden and the burden of Persuasion is hereby placed on the prosecution to prove the charge preferred against the Accused Person. In order to establish its case, prosecution is required by law to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with sections 11 (1) and (2) and section 13 (1) of the evidence Act 1975, (NRCD 323). PW1 Bridget Appiah the complainant in the case, testified that on the 26th February, 2024, she employed the Accused Person to assist her at her Mobile Money shop. She invested an amount of Fifteen Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵15,000.00) in the business but on the 4th March, 2024 she noticed that Twelve Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty-Three Ghana Cedis (GH₵12,733.00) of the initial capital could not be accounted for. She stated that when she asked the Accused Person about the missing money, he told her that a customer wanted an MTN number to transfer and he gave his number but Page 2 of 6 the pin to the Mobile Money Account is blocked and so she quickly asked him to call MTN. Fortunately, they told her that the said amount is not in the account or wallet. They confirmed that the last transaction on the Accused Person’s number was Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵3,000.00). She again stated that, she went for the statement from MTN and saw that the Accused Person had transferred Nine Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵9,700.00) from the Merchant line to his phone number 0244215926 and during investigations the Accused Person confirmed sending Three Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH₵3,000.00) to a vendor to deposit into his personal Mobile Money account. PW2, D/PW/Inspr. Levina Boatemaa Boadu corroborated what PW1 had stated and added that the Accused Person admitted the offence in his caution statement and told the Police that he used the money for football betting. She further tendered all exhibits in support of prosecution’s case. The Court have held overtime that for the offence of stealing to be constituted, Prosecution must prove that the basic ingredients that (i) The person charged must not be the owner of the item alleged to have been stolen. (ii) That the Accused Person must have appropriated it. (iii) The appropriation must have been dishonest. See Mensah and others Vrs The Republic [1978] GLR 404-427 From the Evidence before this Court, it has been successfully proven that the missing amount did not belong to the Accused Person. The Accused Person was only employed by the Complainant Bridget Appiah to manage her Mobile Money shop. The next element to be proven by the Prosecution is that the Accused Person appropriated the item he had been charged with stealing. Thus, the Prosecution is supposed to prove that the Accused Person took, obtained, carried away or dealt with the items otherwise. The Prosecution would also have to prove that the Accused Person Page 3 of 6 intended to deprive the owner of the benefit of his ownership or his rights or interest in the items or in their value or proceeds or any part thereof. There is therefore clear evidence from the Exhibit ‘D’ which is the investigative caution statement of the Accused Person where he admitted that he used the money meant for the business for sports betting and also from the Exhibit ‘G’ Series that the Accused Person transferred money from the Complainant’s Merchant Account to himself on the number 0244215926 with the name Dominic Abrokwah. Thus depriving the Complainant of the benefit of his ownership. Thus proving the second ingredient of the charge. Section 120 (1) of the criminal offences Act, 1960 Act 29 Defines Dishonest Appropriation as follows; “An appropriation of a thing is dishonest if it is made by a person without claim of right and with a knowledge or belief that the appropriation is without the consent of some person for whom he is trustee or who is owner of the thing as the case may be or that the appropriation would, if known to any such person, be without his consent”. Thus, proof of either an appropriation without claim of right or an appropriation without the consent of the owner would be sufficient evidence of dishonest appropriation. Prosecution has been able to prove that the Accused Person had no claim of right to the said amount and neither did he appropriate that sum with the consent of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the Prosecution has established a Prima Facie evidence against the Accused Person. The Accused Person was called upon to open his defence after the Prosecution had closed their case in accordance with section 173 of the criminal and other offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30). The Accused Person in his defence stated that on the 4th March, 2024, he used part of the money for Online Business. He stated that he did that with the intention that he Page 4 of 6 would make profit but his intention failed and for that reason, he is in debt of Eleven Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵11,700.00). This is what ensued during the cross examination of the Accused Person by Prosecution. Q: Your evidence to the Court you just mentioned that you used the Complainant’s money for Online Business. Can you tell the Court the exact business you involved yourself with? A: I used the money for betting Q: Did you seek permission from the complainant or her consent before taking the said amount? A: No my lady Q: Can you tell the Court the duration you have worked with the Complainant? A: I worked with the Complainant for two weeks. These go to confirm and strengthen the case of the Prosecution. Upon considering the total evidence adduced, the Court is of the opinion that Prosecution has led credible evidence to support all the ingredients of the offence charged the Accused Person beyond reasonable doubt. The Court hereby finds the Accused Person guilty of the offence of stealing. Contrary to section 124 (1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and convicts him accordingly. Page 5 of 6 In sentencing the Accused Person, the Court has taken into consideration the Accused Person’s demeanor during the trial, the fact that the Accused Person is a first time offender, his age, his plea for mitigation, the fact that the offence he committed is very rife in the society these days, the fact that he has been able to refund part of Two Thousand, Seven Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH₵2,700.00) of the money he has been accused of stealing and the fact that he absconded when he was due for Judgment and hereby sentence him to Three Hundred and Sixty-Five (365) days imprisonment. (SGD) H/W NANCY T. SEARYOH (MRS.) (MAGISTRATE) ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT CHIEF INSPECTOR ISAAC ABOAGYE PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION Page 6 of 6