Foster-Sutton, P. The appellant was convicted of stealing the sum of £446 13s. 3d. the property of the Akim Abuakwa Native Authority Treasury to which he had access by reason of his employment with that Treasury, an offence under section 271 (1) of the Criminal Code.
The appellant was the branch Treasurer at Suhum and as such was charged with the duty of receiving taxes such as market rents, tolls, licence fees and the like. He was also responsible for paying the salaries of employees of the State and for making other disbursements on the States behalf.
The senior Regional Administrator, one of whose duties it is to check the accounts of the Treasuries of Native Authorities, visited the appellant's office in Suhum on the 9th March, 8th April, 4th May and 4th June, 1952, and on each occasion failed to find the appellant there. On 10th June he heard that the appellant was at Kibi, so he went there accompanied by the State Accountant and State Treasurer. They eventually found the appellant there and proceeded with him to Suhum where they carried out a check of his cash and accounts, The check disclosed a shortage in cash of £446 13s. 3d. which the appellant admitted was missing and in respect of which he was unable to give any explanation.
When he gave evidence on oath at the trial the appellant again admitted that when the check was made he was short of the amount in question, that it was not in his safe, but denied that he had stolen the money.
The three assessors expressed the opinion that he was guilty of the charge, an opinion shared by the learned trial Judge who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Appellant's counsel has argued that the evidence only disclosed a general deficiency and that such evidence cannot support a convicted for stealing, and he cited as his authority for the proposition Rex v. Morris.
That case, however, only supports the proposition that where a person is charged with stealing, fraudulent conversion or embezzlement proof must be given of a specific appropriation of a particular sum of money, and that it is not sufficient in such cases to prove a general deficiency.
In the present case the appellant admitted that when the check was made he was short of the sum of £446 13s 3d., and that he was unable to produced the money or give an account as to how it was lost. In effect he admitted that the sum in question ought to have in his safe, but that it was not there. In these circumstances we cannot see that the objection can be taken that this was a case of general deficiency and not stealing.
We are of the opinion there was evidence to support the charge and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.