Ogedengbe Macaulay V. IGP (1954)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Criminal Law and Procedure—False pretences—Criminal Code, sections 419 and 420—Allegation of obtaining a sum of money—Money paid by cheque—Pretence of ability to influence certain Councillors—Not all Councillors called.
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, sections 167 and 168.
Facts
Sections 167 and 168 (so far as relevant) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance provide as follows:—
“ 167. Any objection to a charge for any formal defect on the face thereof shall be taken immediately after the charge has been read over to the accused and not later.
“168. No judgment shall be stayed or reversed on the ground of any objection which if stated after the charge was read over to the accused or during the progress of the trial might have been amended by the Court, etc.”
The appellant was convicted of obtaining a sum of money from J., the false pretence being that he was in a position to influence Councillors to get an allocation of bus route permits for J. and that certain Councillors of the Town Council had informed the appellant that they would give J. bus route permits if he paid so much for each.
J., believing the pretence, gave a cheque to the appellant, who then gave J. a receipt for the sum on the cheque as ” money received by cheque ”; and the appellant paid the cheque into his bank account. The prosecution also called three of the Town Councillors to prove that the pretence was false.
It was argued for the appellant that it was wrong to convict him of obtaining money under section 419 of the Criminal Code, and that he ought to have been charged with an offence under section 420 of the Code.
Section 419 speaks of obtaining ” from any other person anything capable of being stolen ” or inducing ” any other person to deliver to any person anything capable of being stolen”.
Section 420 speaks of inducing any person to execute, make, etc., any valuable security (which is defined in section 1 of the Code to include ” any document which is the property of any person, and which is evidence of the ownership of any property or of the right to recover or receive any property ”). The other submission was that all the Councillors ought to have been called to negative the pretence.
Held
(1) The appellant asked for money; there was no inducement to the complainant to make out a cheque; the charge was therefore properly laid under section 419 of the Code.
(2) The appellant not having objected, as he could have done under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, to the omission of the word “ cheque ” from the charge, if he thought he would be prejudiced in his defence, section 168 of the Ordinance was applicable.
Held also: The pretence alleged and the evidence was that the appellant could see the proper Councillors who were his friends and (naming them) to get the permits through; and by calling three Councillors the prosecution sufficiently proved the substance of the pretence to be false.
Appeal dismissed.
