COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA
DATE: 31 MARCH 1967
BEFORE: OLLENNU, AZU CRABBE AND APALOO JJ.A.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL against an enhanced sentence imposed by the High Court following committal by the District Court, Sekondi, pursuant to section 178 (1) of Act 30. The facts are sufficiently stated in the judgment of the court.
COUNSEL
Appellant in person.
K. A. Sekyi, Senior State Attorney, for the respondent.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.A.
Ollennu J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant was convicted by the District Court, Sekondi, of the offence of stealing. Upon the said conviction, the learned district magistrate having seen the criminal history of the appellant made the following order: “In view of the evidence and the character of accused the court commits accused to the circuit court for sufficient sentence.”
From the wording of the order it is quite clear that it was made in exercise of the powers and jurisdiction vested in the district court by section 178 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), which reads:
“Where, upon the summary conviction of a person for any offence, the District Court is of opinion that, having regard to the evidence, and to the character and record of the offender, the maximum punishment which the District Court is empowered to impose would be insufficient, the Court may commit the offender for sentence to a Circuit Court and any enactment[p.169] of [1967] GLR 168 relating to the powers of any Court upon committal for trial shall apply so far as relevant to such committal for sentence.
The jurisdiction to pass an enhanced sentence upon a committal under section 178 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), is vested solely in the circuit court and can only be exercised by it and not by any other court. Instead of being taken before the circuit court to which he had been committed, the appellant was taken to the High Court, and there the learned judge erroneously assuming that the committal was under the Punishment of Habitual Criminals Act, 1963 (Act 192), held an inquiry as provided under that Act; and having come to the conclusion that the appellant’s was not a proper case for punishment under Act 192, the learned judge imposed a sentence of four years’ imprisonment with hard labour on the appellant. Against that sentence the appellant appealed to this court. Learned senior state attorney conceded that the High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and therefore the sentence passed is null and void. Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1960 (Act 30), confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the circuit court, the High Court had no jurisdiction to have entertained the case. Therefore the sentence it passed upon the appellant is null and void and must be so declared.
The appeal is therefore allowed, the sentence passed upon the appellant is declared a nullity. The case is remitted to the circuit court for sentence to be passed upon the appellant in accordance with the provisions of section 178 of Act 30.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
Appellant remitted to circuit court for sentencing.
T. G. K.
