Division: IN THE SUPREME COURT
Date: 1ST MAY 1964
Before: OLLENNU, ACOLATSE AND APALOO JJSC
JUDGMENT OF APALOO JSC
Apaloo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. Both appellants were on 19 March 1963 convicted before the circuit court of stealing and the first appellant alone was convicted on eleven counts of falsification of accounts.
The facts which gave rise to his prosecution are substantially straight-forward and are entirely free from complexity. The first appellant was, at the date material to this case, the paymaster of the Ghana National Construction Corporation. As the name of his post implies, the first appellant’s main duty was to pay out wages and salaries of the employees of the corporation. He was assisted in this by a number of officers of the corporation who were variously designated wages or pay clerks. The total amount of wages payable to the employees of the corporation are made out on a document called pay rolls. The figures on the pay rolls are culled out from what are known as wages cards. These cards are normally prepared by the wages clerks. The pay rolls always show the total amount of earnings and net amounts payable to the various workmen. These pay rolls were prepared either by the first appellant or his underlings and the evidence shows that the first appellant had overall responsibility for their accuracy. After pay out, the various pay rolls were returned to him.
Although he was by substantive appointment an assistant accountant, the second appellant was in February 1961 acting as the accountant of the corporation. Whatever other duties his office carried, the evidence makes it plain that one of his duties was to instruct the cashier at the end of the month to requisition for cash for the payment of wages. He did this after satisfying himself as to the total amount required for wages for a particular month. The total amount was normally communicated to him by the comptometer operator who would have ascertained this from the comptometer. This was confirmed by the first appellant.
In February 1961 the total amount of money required to meet the payment of wages, salaries and petty expenses was £G15,800. This was made up of £G14,765 13s. 4d. for wages, £G987 12s. 7d. in respect of salaries and the sum of £G46 14s 1d. was required to meet petty expenses. The second appellant knew the total amount required to meet the payment of salaries and petty expenses. Mr. Macarthy, the comptometer operator, in the ordinary course of duty informed the second appellant that a total sum of £G14,765 13s. 4d. was required to meet the payment of wages. Accordingly, the second appellant knew that only an aggregate sum of £G15,800 was required to meet the corporation’s financial obligation for the month of February 1961. Yet with this knowledge, he instructed the cashier to make a requisition for £G17,000, a sum of £G1,200 in excess of what was actually required.
According to the evidence, Mr. Odartei Lamptey, the cashier, duly carried out the second appellant’s instructions and made out a cheque for £G17,000. This was in due course signed by a Mr. Zuchman. It was on 1 March 1961. On the next day, that is, 2 March the second appellant accompanied the cashier to the bank and the cheque was duly cashed. The money was thereafter deposited in the second appellant’s office. This done, the various pay clerks called at the second appellant’s office and received from him sums of money which tallied with the totals on their respective pay rolls. They issued receipts in favour of the second appellant for these sums.
Almost all the pay clerks testified that the first appellant was with the second appellant and helped in arranging the coins in a cash tray and while the second appellant paid out the notes to these officers, the first appellant handed them the coins. After all the paying clerks had received the moneys they required to meet the wages on their respective pay rolls, the first appellant then received from the second appellant the sum of £G2,689 1s. He also used this sum in paying wages and duly made out for the second appellant, a receipt (exhibit G3A) for this sum.
The evidence shows that after paying out and after the original pay rolls were duly received by the workmen they were returned to the first appellant. It seems obvious that after the pay rolls for February 1961 were returned to the first appellant, alterations were made on six of them. These appear at pages 9, 17, 30, 31, 32 and 43 of exhibit C. In each case the modus operandi was the same. The added total in the “Total Earnings” and “Net Amount Payable” columns were in each case inflated by the sum of £G£200. The aggregate of these inflations amount to £G1,200 and correspond with the excess of £G1,200 which was drawn on the second appellant’s instructions. No less than three witnesses gave evidence that the alterations were in the handwriting of the first appellant. The £G1,200 which was drawn in excess of requirement was not accounted for.
Accordingly, the prosecution claimed that both appellants dishonestly appropriated that money and this formed the basis of the stealing charge in count one. As against the first appellant alone, the prosecution claimed that the pay rolls described above were falsified with the object of facilitating the theft of the money. The first appellant was therefore charged on twelve counts of falsification of accounts. The first appellant denied any knowledge of the theft. Although he said he assisted the second appellant in arranging the money in the tray, he said he received from him no more than the sum which he required for wages and for this sum, he duly gave a receipt. He also denied that the obvious alterations in the pay rolls (exhibit C) were in his handwriting. The second appellant admitted the receipt of the £G17,000 and sought to explain the £G1,200 unaccounted for, by evidence that he gave this sum together with the sum of £G987 12s. 7d. being salaries of clerks and an additional sum of £G46 14s. 1d. being petty cash to Odartei Lamptey, the cashier. The latter admitted receiving from the second appellant the £G987 12s. 7d. being the salaries due to clerks and the £G46 14s. 1d. intended to meet the payment of petty expenses but no more.
Accordingly, as between the second appellant and Mr. Lamptey, there was a simple issue of fact. The issue joined between the prosecution and the first appellant was: Who made the alterations on exhibit C? If they were made by the first appellant so that they corresponded in amount with the £G1,200 unaccounted for and thus purported to show that the £G1,200 was disbursed in wages, it would be difficult to believe that it would have been done without reference to the theft.
In a fairly well considered judgment, the learned circuit judge found that no more than £G46 14s. 1d. was paid to the cashier by the second appellant as petty cash. He held that the £G1,200 was unaccounted for. He found it proved that the alterations appearing at the aforementioned pages of the pay rolls (exhibit C) were made by the first appellant. From this, he drew the inherently natural inference that the first appellant did this to cover up himself and the second appellant. He accordingly concluded that both appellants committed the theft and proceeded to convict them of that charge. He also found it established that the first appellant made the alterations with the object of facilitating the theft. Accordingly, he found him guilty on all the counts charging him with falsification save count eight.
It is against that judgment that both appellants appeal to this court. Although the application of each appellant to appeal was lodged out of time, it appearing that both were in fact signed within the statutory period, we felt that the interests of justice demanded that we enlarge the time for appeal. This we did and thereafter granted each appellant leave to appeal. The only ground of appeal filed by each appellant reads as follows: “That the appellant is not guilty of the alleged crime to warrant his conviction as well as the severe sentence.”
Arguing his appeal in person, the first appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the alterations appearing in the pay rolls were in his handwriting inasmuch as the prosecution produced no handwriting expert to testify on its behalf. He contended that the evidence of the non-expert witnesses who testified that the handwriting was his, was unreliable and was therefore undeserving of belief. He referred us to the summary sheets (exhibit C1A) and argued that since the grand total on the summary sheets were made before the alterations, the total sum could not have been inflated. Accordingly, he contended that there was no surplus cash he could have stolen. On the stealing charge the first appellant submitted that he handled no more money than was given to him by the second appellant to pay the labourers. This, he submitted, he accounted for correctly and therefore the charge of stealing did not lie
against him.
With regard to the first appellant’s contention about the handwriting, as we have already pointed out, no less than three witnesses who were familiar with the appellant’s handwriting expressed as their opinion, that the alterations appeared in his handwriting. Although the appellant vehemently disputed this in the court below, the learned circuit judge who saw these witnesses considered them worthy of credit. We ourselves are aware of no rule of law which
lays it down that evidence of handwriting can only be given by handwriting experts. We think the learned circuit judge was entitled to rely on the evidence of these non-expert witnesses whose testimony was tested before him in cross-examination.
The first appellant’s contention that as the grand total on the summary sheets were cast before the alterations, the total sums in the summary sheets cannot have been inflated and that therefore there was no excess money he could steal does not appeal to us. It seems to us plain that the various wages clerks concerned themselves only with the totals appearing on their respective pay rolls and the breakdown of cash denominations appearing at the back of these sheets. They were all certain that the amounts they received tallied with these documents and where wages are unclaimed, the balances remaining in their hands were returned to the first appellant. All of them gave receipts for the moneys they received (see exhibits G1A, G2A and G4A). The total of these came to £G15,800. It follows therefore that whether the grand totals in the summary sheets were altered before or after the payments, in no way affects the position.
We find it impossible to regard the conscious altering of the pay rolls as an act unconnected with the theft especially as the aggregate of these alterations tallied with the exact amount of the £G1,200 stolen. Indeed that was the view which the second appellant felt constrained to express when the first appellant’s counsel sought to suggest to him that he stole the money by himself. Counsel for the first appellant put to the second appellant that, “If there were any alterations of exhibits C and CIA, C2A and C3A they do not affect the physical money in your hands?” To this, the second appellant replied: “The alterations have bearing on the stolen money.” That seems to us to be the plain truth of the matter. We think that the inference which can legitimately be drawn from this is that both appellants stole the money and that the first appellant falsified the pay rolls to cover the theft and make it appear, contrary to the truth, that the whole £G17,000 was used in paying wages and salaries. It is also to be remembered that both appellants handled the cash and that soon after the £G17,000 was lodged in the second appellant’s office, the first appellant arrived thither and assisted in arranging the coins. Mr. Odoi, the managing director of the corporation, said, “the first accused was the paymaster in charge of pay rolls and distribution of cash to the pay clerks. The first accused did this jointly with the second accused who was then the acting accountant.” This evidence was not disputed in cross-examination. We think therefore that the convictions of the first appellant on the charge of stealing and on the falsification, charges were amply justified by the evidence.
For his part, the second appellant submitted that he handed to Mr. Lamptey the cashier, in addition to the sum of £G987 12s. 7d. the sum of £G1,246 14s. 1d. and that together with the undisputed sum which he paid out to the various pay clerks, he properly disposed of the £G17,000 and that therefore the charge of stealing against him was wrong. As we have already pointed out, the issue between the appellant and the cashier was an extremely simple one of fact. The learned circuit judge resolved this issue in favour of the prosecution. This is essentially a matter for the determination of a trial court and we can see no reason to differ from him.
For the reasons which we have given, we think that the appeal of each appellant against his conviction fails. Both appellants complained in their notice of appeal that the sentences are unduly severe. But no argument was addressed to us by either appellant on the sentence and we can only assume that the complaint against sentence was abandoned. In any event, we think that in view of the amount involved and the position of trust which the appellants occupied, coupled with the fact that none of the stolen money was recovered, the sentences were well merited.
Accordingly the appeal of each appellant is dismissed.
DECISION
Appeal dismissed.
S. A. B.
