DIVISION: IN THE SUPREME COURT
DATE: 12TH MAY, 1961
BEFORE: VAN LARE, SARKODEE-ADOO AND AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.
CASES REFERRED TO
(1) R. v. Aves [1950] 2 All E.R. 330; 34 Cr. App.R. 159, C.C.A.
(2) R. v. Garth [1949] 1 All E.R. 733; 33 Cr. App.R. 100, C.C.A.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL against conviction for receiving stolen property by Judge Jiagge in the Circuit Court, Accra,
on the 3rd March, 1961.
COUNSEL
Koi Larbi for the appellant.
K. Dua Sakyi for the respondent (the State).
JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE, J.S.C.
Van Lare, J. S. C. delivered the judgment of the court. [His lordship stated the facts and continued:] The appellant could not give any explanation of his possession by purchase of the said 100 cases of beer because of his complete denial of the purchase. His case was that he had bought only six cases of beer, and that it was in respect of them that he had given evidence in the case, the proceedings of which we have received in this appeal and marked exhibit S.C.1. Upon a study and perusal of the exhibit, exhibit S.C.1., we agree with the trial circuit judge that the appellant would wish to have the court confused with proceedings in that case which we find were entirely different from the matter in
the present appeal. The appellant bought six cases of beer from those charged together with him on the 26th October, 1960, in that case from a different lot of 100 cases of beer, also stolen by the co-accused from the same brewery. The present charge concerns the theft of another lot of 100 cases of beer stolen on the 20th October, 1960, and this lot, it has been clearly established on the evidence,
was sold to the appellant on the same date, but the appellant has denied possession and thus rendered himself unable to give any explanation. Following the cases of R. v. Aves,1(1) and R. v. Garth2(2) we are satisfied that as the appellant has been proved to have been in recent possession of stolen property on the 20th October, 1960, and he has offered no explanation to account for his possession, guilty knowledge on the charge of receiving stolen property was rightly inferred by the trial circuit judge.
We therefore dismiss the appeal.
DECISION
Appeal dismissed.
