THE QUEEN V. ANYIAM

• Pages: 41-44

THE QUEEN V. ANYIAM



41

The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal assessed at 40 guineas. He

is also entitled to costs in the Court below which are assessed at 30 guineas. If

costs of 20 guineas awarded against him in that Court had been paid, it is to be

refunded.

5



Brett, F.J.

I concur.

Unsworth, F.J.

I concur.

Appeal allowed.

10

THE QUEEN V. ANYIAM

15 THE QUEEN



RESPONDENT

V

GODWIN ANYIAM



APPELLANT

SUIT NO. SC 365/1960.

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

20



ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

UNSWORTH,



F.J.

23rd February, 1961

25 Criminal Law - Comption - Member of Police force asking money for another

for something to be done by that other person - Resolving doubt on evidence

in accused's favour - Criminal Code s. 116(1).

ISSUES:

30



1. Whether section 116 of the Criminal Code covers cases where the accused

asks for or receives money for another person on account of anything already

done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done

by that other person.

2. What is the duty of a trial court when faced with evidence which is open to two

35



interpretations.

FACTS:

The Appellant, a police constable, was instructed by his superior officer to

make investigations and take particulars of a lorry he had stopped on the road on

suspicion that it was mechanically defective. The test by the Vehicle Inspection Of-

40



ficer confirmed the suspicion. The appellant was also instructed to prepare a sum-

mons against the owners of the lorry, and the driver accordingly informed A the

man who was looking after the lorry for the owner. The next day A went to the ap-

pellant at the Police Station and begged him to withdraw the summons to pros-

ecute. The appellant said he was unable to withdraw the summons himself but that

45



the Superior Officer had asked him to receive



before it could be withdrawn.

A reported this to one Mr. Smith, the Senior Superintendent of Police who gave

him five marked £1 notes to give to the appellant, which he later did. The appel-

lant was arrested with the marked notes on him and charged with an offence con-

trary to Section 116(1) of the Criminal Code.

50



The evidence given at the trial showed that a junior officer could not withdraw

a traffic case as it was only the Superior Officer, the A.S.P. in charge of traffic who

could decide such a withdrawal. The trial Judge was of the view that the money

asked for was given so that the prosecution might be withdrawn. The appellant

was convicted.