#Article (Archive)

Gam-food theft case progresses

Mar 5, 2013, 11:51 AM | Article By: Malamin L.M. Conteh

The alleged theft case involving former employee of Gam-food, Muhammed Mucktarr, continued yesterday at the Special Criminal Court in Banjul before Justice Emmanuel Nkea.

It continued with the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness (PW1), Abass Akarr, who earlier gave a long testimony.

Under cross-examination by the defence counsel, the witness told the court that exhibit 3 was only in respect of January 2010, and the said business was registered in his name.

He further stated that the allegation surrounding the case did not arise in January 2010, adding that according to the defence exhibit 4, the name of the business is Gam-Food Trading.

The defence exhibit 3 was the renewal of the defence exhibit 4, he said.

Designated as (PW1), Abass Akarr adduced that the allegation started in 2012, when the company was called Gam-food Trading, admitting that there was an error in the registration process, but he had a ledger for recordkeeping, and a computer for keeping delivery notes, and all imported stocks.

“The ledger is in my office,” he said.

The witness added that he could produce the ledger in court at the next sitting.

Defence counsel Lamin Camara, at that juncture, applied for the witness to produce the said ledger in court.

Counsel’s application was upheld, and the witness was asked to produce the ledger.

Still responding to a series of questions from the defence counsel, PW1 further pointed out that he recorded all his sales, and the imported stocks in the computer, and the date of the importation was also recorded in the computer.

He added that he was not sure whether he had the bills of lading of the stocks with him, stating that every container had a parking list, and he did not know whether he had it.

He said he was not aware of the fact that every container had a delivery order.

Asked by the defence whether the information contained in exhibit C was the same as the one in the computer, he responded in the positive, further stating that exhibit C was dated but the date on it was not the actual date.

He also told the court that there should be a parking list of the total consignment of chicken legs, adding that there were four consignments of chicken legs.

The case continues on 12 March 2012, for further cross-examination.

Read Other Articles In Article (Archive)