OGU V. THE QUEEN

• Pages: 191-192

OGU V. THE QUEEN



191

OGU V. THE QUEEN

5

JOHNSON OGU

V

10 THE QUEEN

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 186/1962

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

15



TAYLOR,



F.J.

20th June, 1963.

Criminal Procedure - Appeals in criminal cases - Substitutionary conviction.

20



Criminal Law - Distinction between stealing and obtaining by false pretences -

Re proceeds thereof

ISSUE:

1. Whether the Federal Supreme Court can under s.27(2) of the Federal Supreme

25



Court Act, and in accordance with s.216 and s.217 of the Criminal Procedure

Code (N.R.), substitute a conviction of obtaining by false pretences for one of

stealing.

FACTS:

The appellant, a clerk in the Treasury, obtained cheques by means of forged

30



vouchers and paid the cheques into accounts of his, on which he drew money.

He was convicted (inter alia) on four counts for stealing contra s.390 of the Crimi-

nal Code the money he drew out of his account.

HELD:

When the cheques were honoured by the drawer's bank, the appellant acquired

35



a good title to the proceeds of the cheques and the money in his account was not

the property of the drawer of the cheques, so he was not guilty of stealing contra

s.390; but, as he had obtained the cheques by false pretences, convictions for this

offence would be substituted.

40



J.N.I. Ezekwe

for the Appellant.

A.R.H. Thomas, Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (North),

for the Respondent.

BRETT, F.J.

(Delivering the Judgment of the Court) The appellant was convicted

on six counts for uttering contrary to section 467(3) of the Criminal Code, or section

45



366 of the Penal Code, on four counts of stealing contrary to section 390(6) of the

Criminal Code, and on two counts of cheating contrary to section 322 of the Penal

Code. In outline the case against him was that while employed as a clerk in the

Treasury he caused vouchers to be submitted to the Treasury, Jos, purporting to

show that various sums were due to contractors for work carried out on behalf of

50 the Public Works Department, and that in consequence of these vouchers cheques

were issued of which the proceeds were credited to bank accounts operated by

the appellant himself under different names. The signatures on the vouchers

purporting to be those of the officers controlling payment were forged, and the

work supposed to have been done had not been done. The total sum obtained by