The Rep. Vrs Seth Alwyn Attoh [2022] GHACC 61 (9 October 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ONE HELD AT ACCRA ON TUESDAY, 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022, BEFORE HER HONOUR AFIA OWUSUAA APPIAH (MRS), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CC NO.: D6/02/2020 THE REPUBLIC V SETH ALWYN ATTOH ACCUSED PERSON JUDGMENT Accused person stands charged before this court on three counts of defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29 (hereinafter referred to as Act 29). Accused person pleaded not guilty to the offences. Brief facts as per the facts sheet attached to the charge sheet are as follows: ‚The complainants are Firgod Ni Adje Laryea a Draftsman, a resident of Odokor, David Kojo Boakye a Driver and resident of Laterbiokorshie and Gloria Osei a Trader and resident of Ofankor whilst the accused person, Alwyn Seth Attoh is a businessman and also lives at Pambrose a suburb of Dansoman. In the month of February, 2018 the accused person met complainant Firgod Nil Adjei Laryea and introduced himself to him as the Chief Executive Officer (C. E. O) of ATCCO BULMATE TECHNOLOGIES. Accused told complainant that his company has been mandated to recruit and train prospective applicants in oil and gas field, acquire travelling and working visas for them to work in Europe and other parts of the world. Upon such representations, the complainant expressed interest and also informed two of his friends, David Kojo Boakye and Gloria Osei who also showed interest. In March 2018, the accused person invited the complainants to his office and convinced them that there was a request from some companies in Europe to recruit workers for them. He therefore demanded Fifteen Thousand Ghana Cedis (Gh¢15,000) each from the complainants for him to include them in the group of trainees who are ready to be employed by these companies overseas. According to the accused person the said amount will be used to secure the travelling documents which includes a Bulgarian visa and a working permit. The complainants were convinced and made an initial payment totaling Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Ghana cedis (GhC22,500) to the accused person with the anticipation that the travelling documents could be secured after which the balance would be paid. The date scheduled by the accused elapsed but the accused could not secure them with the visas and the working permits as he promised. The complainants became alarmed and made their private enquiries only to realize that they have been swindled by the accused. They demanded for a refund of their money but the accused refused to pay them and went into hiding. Complainants lodged a report to the police hich led to the arrest of the accused person. Investigations at the Registrar General's Department revealed that Attco Bullmate Technologies has not been mandated to recruit workers to Europe and other parts of the world as purported by the accused. After investigations accused was charged with the offence as contained in the charge sheet. Article 19 (2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana presumes everyone innocent until the contrary is proved or he/she pleads guilty. In every criminal prosecution, when an accused person denies an offence, prosecution assumes a statutory obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975, NR of Act CD 323 (hereinafter referred to as NRCD 323) with specific reference to criminal cases reads ‚in a criminal action the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt.‛ Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 provides the extent of proof or the burden on the prosecution in a criminal action thus: (1) In a civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 22 of the NRCD 323 further emphasis this principle of law and provides that as follows: ‘in a criminal action, a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond reasonable doubt…’ TAMAKLOE VS THE REPUBLIC (2011) SCGLR 29 at 46 provides that, where a statute creates an offence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offence which is sine qua non to securing conviction, unless the same statute places a particular burden on the accused.. In other words, whenever an accused person is arraigned before any court in any criminal trial it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is therefore on the Prosecution and it is only after a prima facie case has been established by the Prosecution that the accused person is called upon to give his side of the story.‛ See the case of Gligah & Anr. v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870. Prosecution summary of PW1’s evidence on oath is that called three witnesses in support of their case i.e complainant Firgod Nii Adjei, King David Kojo Boakye and investigator of the case D/Cpl David Annan as PW1, Pw2 and PW3 respectively. Accused testified solely and did not call any witness. Defrauding by false pretence is provided for under section 131 (1) of Act 29. The said section provides ‚ A person who defrauds any other person by a false pretence commits a second degree felony. Defrauding is defined under section 132 of Act 29 as follows: “A person defrauds by false pretences if, by means of a false pretence, or by personation that person obtains the consent of another person to part with or transfer the ownership of a thing.” What amounts to false pretence is further defined under section 133 (1) of Act 29 as ‚ a representation of the existence of a state of facts made by a person, with the knowledge that the representation is false or without the belief that it is true, and made with an intent to defraud. In the case of Republic vr Selormey [2001-2002] 2 GLR 424 the ingredients of the offence of defrauding by false pretence were reiterated thus: “Therefore for the prosecution to succeed in proving the charges of fraud by false pretences against the accused person, the law requires that the prosecution must prove by evidence, the following: (a) That the accused person made a representation either by written or spoken words or any other means whatsoever. That the said representation was in regard to the existence of a state of facts. That the said representation was false or made without the belief that it was (b) (c) true. (d) That by that false representation the accused caused another to part with a thing...” I shall proceed to analyse the counts of offences individually in light of evidence on record. Count One- Defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131(1) of Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SETH ALWYN ATTOH: BUSINESSMAN: : For that you in the month of March, 2018 at Accra in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the iurisdiction of this court with intent to defraud did obtain the consent of one Firgod Ni Adjei Laryea to part with cash the sum of Gh¢ 9,500 by means of certain false pretences to wit by falsely pretending that if the said amount is given to you, you could secure him a Bulgarian visa and upon such false representation you succeeded in obtaining the said amount from the said Ni Adjei Laryea which statement you well knew at the time of making it to be false. Pw1 testified that in the month of February 2018, one Anthony Owusu Antwi informed him he knew an agent who could assist him secure Schengen Visa and also recruit people to Europe. He became interested and in turn informed three of his family members who showed interest and together they went to meet with accused at Westhills Mall. Accused introduced himself as the CEO of ATTCO Bull mate Technologies and also into Oil and Gas Company which recruits people and send the to Europe and other parts of the world. According to him, accused further stated that that he could secure them a visa and add them to a group of trainees travelling to Europe at a cost of GHC15,000 per applicant. They all agreed and paid GHC18,500 and additionally paid US$1000. For Schengen Visa. After the payment, they were informed by accused that he was travelling to Nigeria for the Visa application process since it would be faster there than in Ghana. Two months later, accused called them requesting for additional GHC2,000 each. He therefore gave accused GHC6,000 on behalf of the Schengen Visa applicants. Accused thereafter showed them a letter indicating that he had secured them multiple Schengen Visa and promised to go back to Nigeria to continue the process. Nothing was heard from accused until months later when accused informed them that he had returned from his trip to Nigeria and the Bulgarian embassy was requesting for an additional $5000 before the visas would be issued to them. They were surprise at the change of events but pleaded with accused to find money to pay for them after which they would refund same to him. they heard nothing from accused for almost two years and all efforts to locate him proved futile. Later he received message from accused that they should meet in court when he started to chase accused for their monies. He therefore petitioned the Director General CID for assistance. PW3, the investigator testified that on 30/9/2018, the case herein was referred to him for investigations. He took statement from PW1 who told police that accused under the pretext of securing them visas for them to travel and work in Europe had collected cash total sum of GHc 23,000.00 from Firgod Nii Adjei Laryea and his two friends namely Gloria Osei and King David Kojo Boakye under the pretext of securing them a Bulgarian Visa but failed and went into hiding. On 16/10/2019 accused was arrested and his investigation caution statement taken where he admitted the offence but could not account for how he used the monies. Pw3 stated that investigations was extended to Registrar General’s Department to confirm the mandate of the company of accused ATTCO Bullmate Technologies and it was revealed that the company did not have the mandate to recruit people to Europe and other parts of the world as he purports. Accused was subsequently charged with the offences before the court. PW3 tendered in evidence the investigation caution statement as exhibit A, request letter from the Ghana police service to the Registrar General’s department as exhibit B, Company’s profile as exhibit C and statement of accused as exhibits D respectively. Accused person’s in exhibit A and D and his evidence on oath admitted representing to PW1 that he could assist him and three others to secure Schengen visas. Accused however contends in his evidence that he had started the process and spent monies on the visa processing. P the evidence on oath of accused, he is an oil and Gas Trainer and Consultant and also into travel and tour. According to him sometime in 2018, PW1 was introduced to him by Anthony Owusu as someone who was seeking a visa to Singapore for a food business fair dubbed Food and Hotel Asia Fair. PW1 was in the company of three others who also expressed interest in attending the said fair. According to accused, he charged them GHC8,000 each making a total of GHC32,000 but PW1 made a deposit of GHC2,500 for each of them. He completed the application forms on behalf of four accused persons and they were issued with the Singapore Visas. He stated that apart form the GHC2,500 deposit made by Pw1 for all four persons, he had to us his money to pay his counterpart in Singapore and other monetary requirements for the visas. Accused tendered in evidence exhibit 1 series as the said visas. According to accused, PW1 and the others were to attend an interview he had booked for them but they failed to attend same. Exhibit 2 series according to accused is the interview he scheduled. The alternative place where no interview was required was a Bulgarian visa so he informed PW1 and three other applicants about the conditions required for the application of the visa. Accused stated that at that time he did not know there was a requirement for the payment of US$ 5000 as refundable deposit for the issuance of the visa. Accused admitted he told PW1 and the 3 others that he had business contacts in Bulgaria and Belgium, which connect Ghanaians seeking employment in those countries, and they showed interest. According to him, his task was to assist them obtain the Schengen Visas but did not promise to obtain visas for them by all means without he requirement for the issuance of the visa being met. He stated further that he informed them Bulgaria had no embassy in Ghana and that he had to travel to Nigeria to obtain the Visa applications forms and assist them complete the forms and he did so as well as obtain invitation letters from a host in Bulgaria copies of which he tendered as exhibits 4 and 5 series. When he was subsequently informed by his Bulgarian associate of the payment of US$5,000 to the Foreign Ministry in Bulgaria, Pw1 and the others could not raise same. Accused contended that PW1 and the three others could also not produce their return tickets to add to the completed forms for presentation at the Bulgarian embassy despite repeated demands. Upon his arrest, he informed the police that Bulgaria is also a Schengen country when they kept harassing him because had promised a Schengen visa. Accused tended in evidence exhibit 6 as proof that Bulgaria is a Schengen country. He stated that for the issuance of the Bulgarian visa, the applicants needed to have a travel insurance and he obtained same from Nasia Insurance and paid for same with part of the money he took from the applicants copies of which are marked exhibit 7. Accused contended further that he did all he had to do including looking going to the Bulgaria embassy in Nigeria a couple of times, sleeping in hotels in Nigeria, having his counterpart in Bulgaria book accommodation for the applicants and securing travel schedules all to meet the visa application requirement. In evidence as exhibit 11 are accused person’s evidence of travelling by road to Nigeria. Accused denied going into hiding and stated he made several demands for the balance to PW1 for the outstanding balance on GHC32,000 and even sent him a message that he would take legal action in court against him for the said balance. PW1 out of bad faith reported him to the police. Accused contended further that Pw1 was not one of the three persons on whose behalf he was applying for the visas and that PW1 owes him in respect f the Singapore visas he had secured for PW1 and three others. In determining the essential ingredients of the offence, I shall consider the first and second ingredients together .i.e that the accused person made a representation either by written or spoken words or any other means whatsoever and that the said representation was in regard to the existence of a state of facts. From prosecution’s evidence, accused person represented to Pw1, and 2 others that he is the CEO of a company called ATCo Bullmate Technologies which is into oil and Gas Company and also recruit people and send them to Europe and other parts of the world. Accused admits that he charged Pw1 and 3 others GH15,000 to secure them with Schengen Visa. The evidence on record therefore establishes that accused made a representation that he could secure Pw1, and 3 others Schengen visa. In respect of the third ingredient of the offence of defrauding, prosecution is to establish that the said representation was false or made without belief that it was true. In the case of BLAY VRS THE REPUBLIC [1968] GLR 1040 Archer J (as he then was) in holding 5 stated “to defraud was to deprive by deceit or to induce a cause of action by deceit.” Its been held in the case of ASANTE & ORS V THE STATE [1968] GLR 804, that for the prosecution to succeed on a charge of fraud by false pretences under Act 29, ss. 132 and 133 it was not enough for the prosecution to prove that the representation was false, they should go further to prove that the consent to part with ownership was in fact obtained by false pretence. Section 133(1) of Act 29 defines false pretence as follows ‚A false pretence is a representation of the existence of a state of facts made by a person, with the knowledge that the representation is false or without the belief that it is true, and made with an intent to defraud. ‚ The false representation or a statement made without believe that is true must therefore be with an intent to deceive. Although the initial agreement was that accused would secure a Schengen Visa for PW1 and the other applicants and although accused later changed it to Bulgaria an EU country but not a Schengen Country, PW1 and the other applicants per the evidence on record agreed to the application for Bulgarian Visa. PW3 testified that investigations extended to Registrar General revealed that ATCO BULLmates Technologies were not into travel and tour. A perusal of exhibit C, the Company profile of ATCO Bullmates Technologies reveal that the Company is not into travel and tour or recruitment of people to work in Europe or abroad. Accused tendered in evidence exhibit 12, certificate of incorporation of a company Alywn Trading & services Limited originally called ALWYN Trading Travel and Tours Services Limited under cross- examination when he was challenged about rendering a travel and tour services. No company profile was attached to exhibit 12. The business mandate of Alwyn Trading and Services Limited is therefore unknown to the court and same cannot be said to be a travel and tour services company. A perusal of exhibits 1 and 2 series tendered by accused as proof of Singapore Visas and interview for the applicants is not only false but calculated to mislead the court. Exhibit 1 series are registration of the applicants to partake in the Food Fair and not Singapore Visas. Exhibit 2 series are also Visitors Guide brochure for the said program and not interview appointments dates. Exhibit 3 series are Bulgarian Visa application forms endorsed and purported signed by the applicants Gloria Osei Bonsu, Michael Oppong and Vida Owusu Asare to gether with their bio-data page of their passports. The details of ainviting company on exhibit 4 series is Remix Bulgaria Ltd and Lubo Ganev as the contact person. Exhibit 5 shows email correspondence between Accused and one Lubo Ganev of Remix Bulgaria Ltd. A study of exhibit 5 series reveals that accused was in communication with the said Lubo for his assistance to get Bulgaria visa between the period of May 2018 and Sept 2018. This is the period Pw1 had engaged the services of accused to secure them with the Schengen Visa. Again exhibits 7 and 8 discloses that indeed accused paid travel insurance policy for Gloria Osei and Michael Oppong from Nasia insurance limited to cover a trip to Bulgaria. Exhibit 11 series is passenger tickets of GUO Transport West Africa dated 7/5/2018, 19/5/2018, 30/5/2018 and 28/7/2018 with the inscription Return Ticket written on same in proof of his trips to Nigeria to secure the Bulgarian Visa. These ticket bear the name of accused and the dates fall within the period accused purports he was applying for the Bulgarian Visa for PW 1 and 3 others at the Bulgarian Embassy in Nigeria. PW3 under cross-examination confirmed accused persons contention that there is no Bulgarian Embassy in Accra although same was challenged by the prosecutor during the cross-examination of accused. An accused is not obliged to prove his innocence. All that an accused is required to do when invited to open his defence is to raise reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. The Supreme Court in the case of MALLAM ALI YUSIF v THE REPUBLIC [2003-2004] SCGLR 174 held that: “the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion are the components of 'the burden of proof.' Thus, although an accused person is not required to prove his innocence, during the course of his trial, he may run a risk of non-production of evidence and/or non- persuasion to the required degree of belief, particularly when he is called upon to mount a defence’’. Although accused person’s representation to PW1 and three others that he could secure them Schengen Visa and later Bulgarian Visa turned out not to be true, same cannot be said to have been made with the intention to defraud. The totality of Exhibits 4 series, 5 series, 7 and 8 and 11 tendered by accused reasonable establish that he indeed started processing the Bulgarian Visa for Gloria Osei, Michael Oppong and Vida Asare although same was not be concluded. Prosecution witnesses admit that the applicants failed to pay the UD$5,000 refundable deposit demanded according to accused by the Bulgarian embassy for the issuance of the Bulgarian visa. PW3 also failed to verify from the Bulgarian embassy the truth or otherwise of accused persons contention that US$5,000 refundable deposit had to be made before the issuance of the Visa. It is therefore reasonable probable that but for the failure of PW1 and other applicants to pay the $5,000 refundable deposit the visa could have been issued to them. The defence of accused is reasonable and therefore raises reasonable doubt as to his guilt in respect of the charge of defrauding by false pretence. Count Two- Defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131(1) of Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SETH ALWYN ATTOH: BUSINESSMAN: : For that you in the month of March, 2018 at Accra in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the iurisdiction of this court with intent to defraud did obtain the consent of one King David Kojo Boakye to part with cash the sum of Gh¢ 8,00 by means of certain false pretences to wit by falsely pretending that if the said amount is given to you, you could secure him a Bulgarian visa and upon such false representation you succeeded in obtaining the said amount from the said King David Kojo Boakye which statement you well knew at the time of making it to be false. King David Kojo (PW2’s) testimony in respect of meeting accused and the representations made by accused was the same as the evidence of PW1. He testified further that accused demanded they all make an initial deposit of GHC5000. He paid US$1000 and gHc1,500 to accused after which accused went to him with a company identity card and informed him he would use the said card to secure their Schengen Visa. PW2 stated that he all along told PW1 that Accused could not secure the visa so they should demand a refund of their monies but PW1 told him Accused had done it before for a relative of his so they should try him. Later accused informed him he was travelling to Nigeria to follow up on the process since its easier and faster acquiring same from Nigeri. A month later, accused demanded GHC2,000 from each of them and they paid the money. He also heard nothing again until two months later when accused came from Nigeria claiming information he had received from the Bulgarian embassy was that they were to deposit US$50000 as gurantee fee before the issuance of the visa. After the monies had been paid, they heard nothing from accused so he decided to put pressure on PW1 for refund of his money and later reported the matter to the police. Accused challenged the testimony of PW2 and denied making any representation to PW2 or collecting any monies from PW2. PW2 admitted same under cross-examination. Below are excepts from the cross-examination in relation to this issue: Q: I put it to you that you were not one of the people who sought the assistance of accused person for a visa? A: Q: I am part of them You only introduced other people to accused but you personally was not going to travel? A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: That is true but those were my relatives. I put it to you that you were not expecting a visa from accused? Yes but it was through me my two relatives met accused You also got to know accused through PW1? Yes PW1 told you accused had helped him secure a visa for Singapore? No PW1 also told you accused had assisted a relative of his obtain a visa before? A: Q: Yes he did So accused has not collected any money from you personally to help you secure a visa I put it to you? A: Q: Yes but all monies that came from me were channeled through PW1 At paragraph 14 of our witness statement you stated that accused told you Bulgaria embassy was demanding for a guarantee of 5000 euros before they would issue you with the visa not so? A: Q: A: No we did not discuss any Bulgarian visa at all You see accused has no business with you at all concerning any visa? He has because he would not have invited us to meet him at Westhills mall with his business plans and all that. Accused comes to my house and he knows he comes to ask for money from me. Q: You have already admitted that accused was not assisting you in any way to secure a visa. Is that not so? A: Q: Yes I did but I was doing this visa for two of my relatives I also put it to you that what you first told the court that accused comes to our house to collect money is absolutely not true? A: It is true. He comes together with his brother Mr. Nartey but I’d always channel the money through PW1. Q: So you will agree with me that apart from monies PW1 gave to accused you personally has not given any money to him? A: Yes. I channeled every money to him through PW1 because he introduced accused to me. Q: A: PW1 acted as your agent who was dealing with accused person not so? I may say yes because he introduced accused to me as someone who can secure Schengen visa for my relatives Q: A: Q: So all the communication between you and accused was through PW1? That is so I put it to you that the accused person was to organize or assist your relatives secure a Bulgarian visa. A: Q: No that was not what PW1 communicated to me I put it to you that accused never promised a Schengen visa because at the time he was organizing a trip to Bulgaria? A: Q: No I put it to you that when you say at paragraph 7 that he could secure us visa and add us to a group of trainers travelling to Europe you were not part of this us? A: Q: A: Q: A: No I was not Your relatives wanted to go to Europe correct? That is so And they needed a visa to get out of Ghana not so? Yes Q: I put it to you that accused does not work in any embassy and could not on his own secure a visa for them? A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: I don’t know Have you heard of a travel agent before? Yes You know what they do? I don’t know what they do I put it to you that accused person assist people obtain visas by taking them through visa application processes. A: Q: He did not make us aware of this. As part of the process accused told PW1 that he needed their bank statement income tax clearance to add to their visa forms to apply for the visas? A: No. this was not the initial agreement we had. This was an afterthought. Q: I put it to you that accused obtained all the forms required from Nigeria? A: Q: A: Q: No. He did not show any form to us. Is one of your relatives called Owusu Asare Yes I put it to you that because you were not one of the applicants you didn’t fill a form but Owusu Asare did. A: Not that I am aware of Q: Who is your other relative you brought to PW1? A: Micheal Oppong Q: I put it to you that Michael Oppong also completed the visa application procured by accused from Bulgarian embassy in Nigeria. A: Q: Not that I am aware of I further put it to you that your two relatives need travel insurance as part of the visa application needs to procure the visa. A: No that was not the initial agreement Q: I also put it to you that your said relatives need a visit in Bulgaria to invite them and accused did so. A: Q: No. all these are afterthought. I put it to you that as part of visa process the embassy demanded residence details, work place details and accused secured accommodation for then? A: Q: No You see I put it to you that you don’t know anything of the agreement PW1 and accused? A: I know. Any discussion between PW1 and accused, he later on informed me about it. From this excepts, Accused person herein never made any representation to PW2 that if he parts with the sum of GHC he could secure him Schengen Visa as claimed by prosecution in count two of the charge statement. PW2 at all time dealt with Accused through PW1. PW2 admits that any money he paid to accused was made on behalf of his two relatives through PW1. Pw1 in his evidence has stated that he and three others had made all the said payments collectively to accused. the evidence on record therefore fails to establish that accused person herein made any representation at all to PW2 as alleged per count two. Count two of the charge sheet accordingly is not proved beyond reasonable doubt at the close of the case. Count 3- defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131(1) of Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE SETH ALWYN ATTOH: BUSINESSMAN: : For that you in the month of March, 2018 at Accra in the Greater Accra Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court with intent to defraud did obtain the consent of one Gloria Osei to part with cash the sum of Gh¢ 5,000 by means of certain false pretences to wit by falsely pretending that if the said amount is given to you, you could secure him a Bulgarian visa and upon such false representation you succeeded in obtaining the said amount from the said Gloria Osei which statement you well knew at the time of making it to be false. In respect of count three, alleges that Accused with intend to defraud did obtain the consent of one Gloria Osei to part with cash the sum of GHC5,000 by means of certain false pretences that if the money was given to him, he could secure her Bulgarian visa and upon such false representation succeeded in obtaining the said amount. Gloria Osei was not called to testify in the matter neither was any evidence whatsoever led by the prosecution to the effect that accused made such a representation to this Goria and that this Gloria even made payment of the said GHC5,000.00. At the close of prosecution’s case as well as the entire case, no evidence had been led to establish the said representation accused made to this said Gloria Osei or the payment of monies by this said Gloria Osei to accused obtained under any false pretence. Accordingly, count three of the charge sheet remains unproven and same fails in its totality. Conclusion The failure of Accused to conclude the agreement he had with PW1 and 3 others and or discharge same in itself does not amount to a criminal offence of intending to defraud them under false pretences but at best a breach of contract which is a civil case. The defence of accused therefore has raised doubt in the mind of the court as to his guilt in respect of count one (1) of the charge sheet. Count two and three (3) of the charge sheet remained unproven at the close of prosecution’s case and at the end of the entire case. From the totality of evidence before the court, prosecution fails to establish the guilt of accused in respect of all three counts of defrauding by false pretences. The court therefore finds Accused person not guilty of all three counts and accordingly acquitted and discharged on all three counts forthwith. ACCUSED PRESENT C/INSP SOPHIA ASIEDU ANTI FOR PROSECUTION PRESENT J. K LARKAI FOR ACCUSED ABSENT SGD H/H AFIA OWUSUAA APPIAH (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT 1 JUDGE) 18 19