QUESTION 3

The Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) proscribes the acts of possessing property with full
knowledge it was obtained unlawfully. Sections 146 and 148(1) of Act 29 specifically deal with these
offences.

Under section 146 the law makes it an offence for a person to receive property which he has full
knowledge that it was obtained by stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, defrauding by false pretense,
robbery, extortion or unlawful entry.

Section 148(1) also states that a person under a charge of dishonestly receiving property who is shown
to have had in his possession or control anything reasonably suspected of having been stolen or
obtained by crime would have to bear the burden of convincing the court that he had no reason to
believe that the property was obtained by crime. In the case of Santuoh v the Republic, Owusu-Addo J.
held that “during prosecution it was not necessary for prosecution to lead evidence on actual
knowledge. It was sufficient if evidence from which knowledge could be justifiably inferred was
established”. This creates a peculiar situation in criminal jurisprudence where the accused bears the
burden of proving his innocence.

Niki in this situation can be charge for possessing stolen property under section 148(1) if the prosecution
can provide evidence enough to justifiably infer that indeed Akiti stole the items. The law then shifts the
burden on Niki to convince the court that he had no reason to know that Akiti was selling items to him
that had been stolen