Omotosho Jacob Vs Commissioner Of Police (1961)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA, C.J.F 

The appellant, who at the material time was a Police

Constable, was convicted in the Chief Magistrates Court at Ibadan on charges containing three counts, namely, (1) with intent to steal demanded the sum of f20 from one Dehinde Ogun with threats, contra Section 406 of the Criminal Code; (2) corruptly received for one Inspector of Police the said sum of £20 from Dehinde Ogun with a view to corrupt or improperly interfere with the due administration of justice contra Section 116(1) of the Criminal Code, and (3) with intent to defraud, did obtain the said sum of £20 from the said Dehinde Ogun by falsely pretending that he was sent by an Inspector of Police in order not to prosecute the said Dehinde Ogun for an offence contra Section 419 of the Criminal Code. On this count the learned Magistrate convicted him of attempt.

The facts as alleged are that on 10th September, 1960, the appellant went to the University College Hospital, Ibadan, where he told Mr.. Dehinde Ogun that he was investigating into an allegation made against him that he had obtained employment as a clerk with the Hospital Authorities by falsely stating that he had passed Class IV examination. With Mr.. Ogun the appellant saw the Establishment and Training Officer who showed Mr.. Ogun’s application to the appellant and assured him that Mr.. Ogun had never pretended to the Hospital Authorities that he had at any time passed Class IV. The appellant took Ogun to the Police Station before Inspector Obiagwu where Ogun wrote out a statement and was later allowed bail in his own recognizance and warned to return on 12th September. As Ogun left the Police Station, the appellant followed him. He told Ogun that the Inspector had instructed him to charge Ogun for obtaining employment on a false certificate and unless he paid money to the Inspector, he would be so charged. He was asked to pay £5 down and he would be told later what balance he would have to pay. As Ogun said he had no money to pay that day he was allowed to go. When he returned to the Police Station two days later (12th September) he was told by the appellant that the Inspector had asked for £20. Ogun said he would pay the amount at a more convenient time. Meanwhile, Inspector Obiagwu saw Ogun and told him to go away and come back after he had closed from the office. The appellant persisted in his demand and went to see Ogun in his office several times. He said the Inspector was now demanding £50. Subsequently Ogun contacted the Police. He was given 20 marked pound notes. When the appellant came again he demanded the money from Ogun. Ogun told him he would give £20 then and the balance would be paid later. He then handed the 20 marked currency notes to the appellant who took them. As he went a few yards he was arrested by two Police Constable who had been waiting to surprise him.

The appellant did not succeed in his appeal to the High Court and this is a second appeal. The six grounds of appeal filed and argued before us are as follows:–

1.The learned Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 406 of the Criminal Code when the evidence does not support an offence under Section 406 of the Criminal Code.

2.The learned Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 406 when the evidence does not support the particulars as laid in the charge.

3.The learned Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 116(1) of the Criminal Code when the evidence does not support an offence under Section 116(1) of the Criminal Code.

4.The teamed Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an offence under Section 116(1) of the Criminal Code when the evidence does not support the charge.

5.The learned Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an attempt to obtain money under false pretences when the false pretence alleged in the charge is not such as would operate on the complainant Dehinde Ogun to part with the possession and property in the alleged sum of £20.

6.The learned Judge erred in Law in not holding that the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in Law in convicting the appellant of an attempt to obtain money under false pretences when the charge does not disclose an offence under Section 419 of the Criminal Code.

Arguing the first two grounds, Counsel submitted that the offence contemplated by section 406 of the Criminal Code relates to demands made for oneself with intent to steal and not demands made for or on behalf of another. The demand in this case having been made for the Inspector of Police, this Section of the Code, it was submitted, would not apply. Section 406 of the Criminal Code reads:–

406.Any person who, with intent to steal anything, demands it from any person with threats of any injury or detriment of any kind to be caused to him, either by the offender or by any other person, if the demand is not complied with, is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

We must reject this argument; we hold the view that the section covers demands made by the offender for himself or for others with a view to steal so long as such demands are accompanied by threats of any injury or detriment of any kind if the demands are not complied with. In the present case, however, it is clear that the threats could not and did not in any way operate on the complainant as he was not only aware that he had committed no offence for which he could be prosecuted, but he was also aware, according to evidence, that the appellant knew very well that he had committed no offence.