“On the first point, Counsel for the appellants contends that the 1st appellant in his statement to the Police stated that the receipt was given to Councilor Noyo Chukwu, the 5th Prosecution Witness, and therefore the notice to produce was wrongly issued or served on the 1st appellant; he submitted that it should have been served on the 5th Prosecution Witness. It is clear on the evidence, and in fact the 1st appellant himself admits that the original receipt issued by Prosecution Witness No. 3 was given to him, the 1st appellant. The Police Constable investigating the case, Prosecution Witness No. 7, deposed that the 1st appellant denied all knowledge of the receipt. Prosecution Witness No. 6, a member of the School Committee, said this about payments and receipts made to and received from the contractor, Prosecution Witness No. 3, in respect of the school building:- “The Committee pay the 3rd P. W. and the receipt is given to 1st accused for safe keeping.” In our view the notice was rightly served on the 1st appellant and the duplicate receipt rightly received in evidence.”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
