POLICE VS SOODHUN SHOWKUTALLY

2019 INT 197

POLICE VS SOODHUN SHOWKUTALLY

Cause Number: 733/18
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS
(Criminal Division)
In the matter of:-
POLICE
VS
SOODHUN SHOWKUTALLY
JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Accused stands charged with the offence of abuse of authority by public officer in
breach of section 77 of the Criminal Code in as much as whilst being an agent of the
Government, he wilfully and unlawfully committed an arbitrary act prejudicial to sections 16(2)
and (3) of the Constitution of Mauritius. He pleaded not guilty to the charge against him.
Learned Senior Counsel Me Chetty, Learned Counsel, Me Gulbul and Me K Chetty appeared
for the Accused. Learned Assistant DPP, Me Manrakhan, appeared for the Prosecution together
with Learned State Counsel Me Soochit and Me Bissessur, assisted by Inspector Jory. Learned
Counsel Me A Bissessur appeared holding a watching brief for witness No.5.

The particulars of the charge against the Accused are that on the 17th July 2017, during
a meeting held in the Board Room of the Ministry of Housing and Lands, the said Accused gave
an undertaking to a group of persons, known as the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’, that NHDC
houses in their locality would be allocated to persons in a discriminatory manner, in the following
terms:

« Mo donne zotte garantie ki pou enan 90 pour cent hindoue ki pou gagne la cage la bas
et zero pour cent, ene musulman pas pou gagne la cage la bas et sa mone fine donne
1
 l’ordre directive mo bane officiers, pou implemente mo directive, et pou enan trois quart
hindoues de Bassin ki nous pou donne priorite et 10 pour cent ki rester la, sa nous pou
donne ca banne mélange, pou enan so creole tout la dans, et pas pou enan aucaine
creole cite ki pou vine reste la bas pou vine prostituer ».

THE FACTS

The factual background

The present case concerns a housing project in the region of Bassin in Mauritius. In the
year 2014, the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes conveyed its approval for a housing project
known as the National Housing Development Co. Ltd (NHDC) housing project involving the
construction of 104 housing units in Bassin. In the year 2017, the NHDC started to receive
complaints from the inhabitants of Bassin in relation to the housing project. Consequently, a
meeting was held on the 28th April 2017 between the Managing Director of NHDC, a Member of
Parliament and a Parliamentary Private Secretary as well as one representative of the
inhabitants of Bassin to discuss about the concern of the inhabitants of Bassin. Another meeting
was held on the 16th May 2017 at the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes to discuss the
implementation of the project.

The residents of Bassin formed a group called ‘Regroupement de Bassin’. On the 22nd
May 2017, the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’, represented by Mr Seewa Jankoo, caused a Notice
‘Mise en Demeure’ to be served on the Chief Executive and Chief Planner of the Municipal
Council of Quatre Bornes and the NHDC expressing their disagreement to the NHDC housing
project. On the 9th June 2017, there was yet another meeting held at the Municipal Council of
Quatre Bornes, in presence of the Mayor of the Council of Quatre Bornes, Municipal
Councillors, representatives of the Ministry of Housing and Lands (MHL), residents of Bassin
road and representatives of NHDC. In the said meeting, the residents of Bassin expressed their
strong disagreement against the NHDC housing project with much anger.

On the 20th June 2017, Mr Jankoo and other inhabitants of Bassin caused an injunction
to be lodged against the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes, the NHDC and the MHL, praying
for an order to issue to restrain the Respondents, that is, the Municipal Council of Quatre
Bornes, the NHDC and the MHL, their servants and/or agents from continuing all construction
activities upon the portion of land situated at Bassin. The Interim Order was declined and the
Respondents had been summoned to appear before the Judge in Chambers. On the 17th July
2
2017, the Accused agreed to meet the representatives of the residents of Bassin in the
presence of officers of the NHDC and MHL.

At the same time, several extracts from the national newspaper, lexpress.mu, revealed
the representations of the inhabitants of Bassin. The police secured documents and the main
enquiring officer, in this case, that is, Inspector Ramdhony, confirmed that one person in the
extract making the representation was Mr Pursun. Another picture showed a man holding a
banner reading: “HABITANTS BASSIN Pas d’accord LA DROGUE, PROSTITUTION ET LES
AUTRES FLEAU SOCIALES à BASSIN VIV A VIS ENN KALI MATA MANDIR”. In other
pictures, one can see people holding banners reading : « GOVERNEMENT PE RETIR
PROJETS LA PLAINE FOOTBALL, GYM, COMPLEXE SPORTIVE POU CONSTRUIRE ENE
CITE NHDC a la place à BASSIN », « GOUVERNEMENT BIZIN PROTEGE…. », “PREMIER
MINISTRE BIZIN INTERVENIR POU ARET SHOWKUTALLY SOODHUN Construire ene Cité
NHDC à Bassin”, “SHOWKUTALLY SOODHUN Vice Premier Ministre pe met enn Cité NHDC a
BASSIN VIV A VIS ENN KALI MATA MANDIR”.

The version of Mr Pursun

Amongst the inhabitants of Bassin protesting against the NHDC housing project was Mr
Pursun. In the present case, Mr Pursun was called as a Prosecution witness. In Court, Mr
Pursun described himself as a Hindu priest who performs religious ceremonies. He testified that
the inhabitants of Bassin came to see him to join the group called ‘Regroupement de Bassin’
because he was an active social worker and was also in the past, a councillor in the Municipal
Council of Quatre Bornes for the period of 1991 to 1996. He was also the Deputy General
Manager in the Outer Island Development Corporation before he was allegedly dismissed from
his employment on the ground of being a political agent for the labour party in the year 2015.

It is the contention of Mr Pursun that the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’ wanted a meeting

with the then Honourable Minister of Housing and Lands to discuss about the NHDC housing
project, leading them to gather in front of the office of the then Honourable Minister. At the
material time, the Minister of Housing and Lands was the Accused. The primary focus of Mr
Pursun was the fact that he described the area of Bassin as a jewel where there is a river and a
mountain view, which bring along a peace of mind, but he contended that the construction of the
NHDC housing project would bring along social evils like prostitution, illiteracy, delinquency,
3
alcohol and drugs. He therefore wanted the construction of the housing estate to be moved to
another site. According to Mr Pursun, the social evils could emanate from different communities.

On the 17th July 2017, Mr Pursun together with a few members of the ‘Regroupement de
Bassin’, namely Mr Jeewoonarain, Mr Sookun and Mr Jankoo met the Accused in a conference
room in Port Louis and Mr Pursun was the spokesperson. Mr Jankoo confirmed that he
attended the meeting and was driven thereat by Mr Jeewoonarain. Mr Pursun made
representations about the fact that the permit for the construction of the housing estate was
allocated opposite a temple, a Kali Mata Mandir, where people, especially women walk over
long distances to come and pray. The social scourge arising from the housing estate, to be
constructed at a distance of about 50 metres from the Kali Mata Mandir, would blemish the
peace of mind of the people coming to the place of prayer.

Mr Pursun averred that the meeting with the Accused went well. The Accused promised
that the housing estate would include beautiful houses. However, it was the contention of Mr
Pursun that the inhabitants of Bassin were people of better-off origin who had invested money
to buy land in Bassin but the NHDC housing estate would bring along people of lower social
status which would cause much disturbance in Bassin.

At one point, there was a stir in the meeting and a strong exchange of opinion.
According to Mr Pursun, the Accused told Mr Sookun: « ki ti trouvé to ene MSM to pe faire ene
désordre. To pe contre ça projet là. Et sa même to pan vine le Maire. To ti ena pou vine le
Maire, sa même façon ki ton perdi to sans vine le Maire ? » He then added that the Accused
said : « ala mo rassure zot pas bizin zot inquiété ki pou ena 90% Hindou de Bassin ki pou vine
reste là-bas dans ça projet là. Et pas pou ena aucaine musulman, ene musulman pas pou dans
ça projet la et sa mone fini donne l’ordre, directive mo ban officiers pou implémente sa l’ordre
la ; sa décision là. Et trois quarts ki pou ena ladans pou ena bane habitants Bassin même ki pou
vine reste ladans. Ki zot dans problème, zon faire application ». Mr Pursun averred that the
Accused also said « C’est communauté Hindou, pou vine reste ladans et mo rassure zot ça
aussi ki pas pou ena personne ; et sa 10% ki resté la li pou un peu mélange. Pou ena so créole
tout ladans. Et dans parmi bane créole, pas pou ena bane créole cité ki pou vini, ki pou vine
reste labas, ki pou vine prostituer. »

At that point, the meeting became heated. Mr Pursun narrated that the Accused even
told them to reimburse the construction project expenses so that he could re-allocate the

4
housing estate. According to Mr Pursun, the meeting lasted for about an hour. Subsequently, a
video clip was circulated in the public and through YouTube displaying the unfolding of the
meeting.

It is the version of Mr Pursun that in November 2017, he was in Quatre Bornes when 4
or 5 police officers approached him and asked him to come to the CCID which he did on the
next day, that is, on the 10th November 2017. He gave a statement wherein he told the police
what occurred and what was said in the meeting of the 17th July 2017.

On the 20th November 2017, Mr Pursun gave another statement to the CCID. He
averred that in the morning of the 20th November 2017, he received a call from his brother-in-
law, Mr Badaye, whom he met and who informed him that if he withdrew the case, he would get
his job back. Mr Badaye also invited Mr Pursun to meet 2 people in Phoenix in the evening. Mr
Pursun went to Jumbo Phoenix and thereat met the 2 people and Mr Badaye. He was then went
in a car and was driven to the residence of the car driver to discuss the matter. He also received
a call from the CCID where he was awaited to give a statement.

Mr Pursun was made to understand that he had to give a contradictory statement to

what he told the police on the 10th November 2017 and he had to disculpate the Accused. He
stated that he felt trapped and kidnapped. Reaching in front of the Line Barracks Police
Headquarters, the people driving Mr Pursun to the CCID parked in a fuel station opposite the
headquarters and Mr Pursun was briefed in relation to what he ought to say in the statement,
namely that it was Honourable Xavier Duval who had asked him to level a false charge against
the Accused. In other words, he ought to say that it was not the Accused who had uttered the
impugned words but it was Honourable Xavier Duval who concocted the charge against the
Accused. Mr Pursun contended that he felt scared for his life, the moreso that on the way to the
CCID, the car which he was in was followed by another vehicle.

At about 8 o’clock in the evening of the 20th November 2017, he gave a statement at the
CCID. However, he did not tell the police what Mr Badaye and the 2 people asked him to say.
Instead, he gave another story to the police where he stated that he was advised by Honourable
Xavier Duval to give a statement on the 10th November 2017 to reveal what the Accused said in
the meeting held on the 17th July 2017. In so doing, he failed to exonerate the Accused and
further failed to state that the charge was concocted by Honourable Xavier Duval. He simply

5
repeated what the Accused allegedly stated in the meeting of the 17th July 2017 but added that
it was Honourable Xavier Duval who incited him to reveal same to the police.

After Mr Pursun gave the statement on the 20th November 2017, he was driven back to
Jumbo Phoenix to fetch his car. There reaching, a man called Mr Khaleel came to tell him that
he did not give a proper statement and he had to go back on the next day to correct same. On
the next day, he refused to go back to the CCID because he was not comfortable with the
statement given on the 20th November 2017 which he claimed was given under duress and he
also did not want to falsely incriminate someone. On the 24th November 2017, he swore an
affidavit drafted through an Attorney-at-Law, explaining the sequence of events.

On the 25th November 2017, Mr Badaye gave a precautionary measure at Quatre

Bornes police station. This was confirmed in Court by PC Hemraj, posted at Quatre Bornes
police station.

The version of the defence

The version of the Accused is contained in his statement given to the police on the 26th
December 2017. The political background of the Accused is that he has been an elected
Member of Parliament in the year 1987 in the MSM political party and has since been a Private
Parliamentary Secretary, Minister and Member of the National Assembly. He was the Minister of
Housing and Lands from the year 2014 until November 2017. He also held the post of Vice
Prime Minister.

The Accused told the police that he was not aware of the NHDC projects since it
concerned the day-to-day business of the NHDC management. He therefore could not provide
any detail about the implementation of the project. Nonetheless, the Accused acknowledged
having chaired a meeting on the 17th July 2017 regarding the NHDC housing project and
explained that it was an informal meeting as the participants in the meeting had already entered
a case against the NHDC in Court. Amongst the people present were the director general of
NHDC and two Managers of NHDC as well as four inhabitants of Bassin.

According to the Accused, he spoke generally to the four inhabitants of Bassin and there
was an exchange of conversation. He averred that he was careful as to what was said because
there was a case in Court. The Accused denied that he made use of racial comments at the

6
meeting and further denied that he used the following words: « Mo donne zotte garantie ki pou
enan 90% Hindous ki pou gagne la cage labas et zero pour cent, ene musulman pas pou gagne
la cage labas et ça mone fini donne l’ordre, directive mo bannes officiers pou implemente mo
directive et pou enan trois quart bannes hindous de Bassin ki nous pou donne priorité et 10% ki
resté là, ça nous pou donne sa bannes mélanges, pou enan so Créole tout ladans et pas pou
enan aucaine Créole cité ki pou vine reste labas pou vine prostituer ». The Accused refused to
comment on a clip allegedly witnessing the meeting of the 17th July 2017 disputing its
authenticity and its origin.

The video clip

In connection with the present case, ACP Manaran remitted to Inspector Ramdhony a
DVD make Vayo with label ‘Meeting with Forces Vives of Bassin, Quatre Bornes by Honourable
Showkutally Soodhun on 17th July 2017’ as well as a pen drive which had, in fact, been
transcribed onto the DVD by PC Ackbarally. The DVD was then remitted to PS Seebaruth
posted at the IT unit of the CCID and he made a faithful transcription of its content. The DVD,
the pen drive and the transcript have been produced in Court.

On the 8th November 2017, there was an article in the newspaper l’Express to the effect
that the director of publications at La Sentinelle, Mr Nad Sivaramen and his colleague, Mr Axel
Chenet, went to see the Prime Minister on the eve because they came in possession of the pen
drive containing a video, the diffusion of which, they felt, could disturb the social fabric in the
country.

OBSERVATIONS

The Law

I have assessed the evidence on record. At the outset, I have taken note that Learned
Senior Counsel for the defence has questioned the legal status of the ‘Regroupement de
Bassin’ in his submissions. However, I have come across a letter dated the 29th May 2017,
being an annexe to the injunction lodged by the inhabitants of Bassin that the ‘Regroupement
de Bassin’ consist of about 200 inhabitants of Bassin who have authorised Mr Seewa Jankoo to
be their spokesperson to act on their behalf in all legal and social matters pertaining to the
7
NHDC housing project in Bassin. They have acted collectively to cause a Mise en Demeure and
an injunction to be served on the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes and the NHDC as well as
the MHL. I am therefore satisfied that the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’ is a group consisting of the
inhabitants of Bassin.

The Accused is charged with an offence of abuse of authority by public officer in breach
of section 77 of the Criminal Code. Section 77 of the Criminal Code reads:

77. Abuse of authority by public officer

“Subject to section 78, where a public functionary, an agent of, or person appointed by
the Government, orders or commits any arbitrary act, prejudicial either to individual
liberty, or to the civic rights of one or more individuals, or to the Constitution of Mauritius,
and does not prove that he acted by order of his superior, in matters within the
competency of the latter, he shall be condemned.”

The relevant sections of the Constitution concerned in section 77 of the Criminal Code and
which find their application in the present case are sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Constitution.
They read as follows:

1. ……
2. Subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8), no person shall be treated in a
discriminatory manner by any person acting in the performance of any public
function conferred by any law or otherwise in the performance of the functions of
any public office or any public authority.
3. In this section, “discriminatory" means affording different treatment to different
persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race,
caste, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex whereby persons of
one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons
of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or
advantages that are not accorded to persons of another such description.

At this juncture, I deem it fit to refer to the case of DPP VS JAGDAWOO V. & ORS (2016) SCJ
100 which defines the origin of section 77 of the Criminal Code, as follows:

“Section 77 of our Criminal Code has been borrowed from Article 114 of the French
8
 Code Penal which, prior to its amendment in France, was couched in identical terms”.

In the present case, the charge in the Information has been laid against an agent of the
Government who allegedly committed an arbitrary act prejudicial to the Constitution of Mauritius.
Therefore the Prosecution has to prove the following elements of the offence:

(i) The Accused was an agent of the Government;

(ii) The Accused committed an arbitrary act;

(iii) The arbitrary act was prejudicial to the Constitution of Mauritius;

(iv) The charge against the Accused;

(v) Mens rea of the Accused.

I will also deal with the credibility of the main Prosecution witness, Mr Pursun as well as the
evidence adduced. It is within the above subheadings which I shall deal with the points of Law
raised by Learned Senior Counsel for the defence as well as the submissions of the Prosecution
and the defence.

The Accused : an agent of the Government?

Under section 77 of the Criminal Code, there are 3 different types of people who are
amenable for Prosecution in relation to an offence of abuse of authority by a public officer.
Although the heading of the enactment speaks of a public officer, the act creates an offence for
a public functionary, an agent of the Government or a person appointed by the Government. In
the present case, the Prosecution elected to prosecute the Accused as an agent of the
Government.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 9th edition, an agent means ‘a
person whose job is to act for, or manage the affairs of, other people in business, politics’. It is
undisputed that at the material time, the Accused was the Vice Prime Minister and Minister of
Housing and Lands in Mauritius. Ministers form part of the executive authority of the
Government and hence act for and represent the Government. In other words, Ministers are
agents of the Government. It is to be borne in mind that the applicability of section 77 of the
Criminal Code to an agent of the Government is restricted to an agent who has acted in the

9
exercise of his functions. This principle has been expounded in TRAITE DE DROIT CRIMINEL,
DROIT PENAL SPECIAL, MERLE ET VITU.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Defence has submitted that section 77 of the Criminal
Code is not applicable to a Minister because there is no hierarchy for Ministers in as much as
Ministers are answerable for certain matters to the National Assembly, to the Cabinet and to the
people. He argued that a Minister does not report for his day-to-day activities and is not subject
to discipline mechanism, save and except for political sanctions, unlike the situation for police
officers as in the case of DPP VS JAGDAWOO (Supra). He argued that the Minister is at the
head of a Ministry and there is no superior officer to the Minister. Moreover, section 77 of the
Criminal Code concerns individuals who are under a hierarchical structure of a superior officer
and an offence will only subsist when an Accused party cannot prove that he acted by order of
his superior officer.

On this score, I have borne in mind that under section 59 of the Constitution of Mauritius,
Ministers are appointed by the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime
Minister. Under section 62 of the Constitution, a Minister may be assigned a responsibility for
the conduct of any business of the Government. It is to be noted that Ministers are the executive
branch of the Government and are answerable to the Cabinet, the National Assembly or the
Parliament which provides a hierarchical structure within which Ministers operate. I therefore
find that there is a hierarchical structure within the Parliament which consists of the President
and the National Assembly.

It is true that if an Accused party proves that he acted under the orders of a superior
officer, no offence will ensue. There will be a “cause d’excuse” which will exonerate the Accused
party (RE: TRAITE THEORIQUE ET PRATIQUE DU DROIT PENAL FRANCAIS, ART 1273).
In the present case, given that I have found that there is a hierarchical structure for Ministers
within the Parliament, I find that Ministers are amenable for Prosecution under section 77 of the
Criminal Code. In fact, it has been clearly laid down in TRAITE DE DROIT CRIMINEL, DROIT
PENAL SPECIAL, MERLE ET VITU that “les personnes visées” under Article 114 of the French
Penal Code, are as follows:

“Dans l’article 114, la loi vise très largement les “fonctionnaires, agents ou préposés du
gouvernement”, c’est-à-dire toute personne qui, à titre quelconque, exerce une fonction
publique où se trouve être dépositaire de l’autorité publique ou agent de la force

10
 publique ; pour mieux marquer le caractère général de l’énumération légale, la Cour de
cassation a même déclaré le texte applicable à tout « préposé à un service public ».
Plus spécialement, l’article 114 s’applique à des magistrats, des ministres, préfets, sous-
préfets, maires et adjoints, commissaires de police, inspecteurs de police, agent de
police, gardes champêtres et gardes forestiers, agents des douanes… » (the underlying
is mine).

In view of the above, I agree with the submissions on behalf of the Prosecution that section 77
of the Criminal Code is applicable to Ministers and hence the Accused was amenable for
Prosecution under section 77 of the Criminal Code in his capacity as the Vice Prime Minister
and Minister of Housing and Lands.

Did the Accused commit an arbitrary act?

There are three types of arbitrary acts covered by section 77 of the Criminal Code and
they are an arbitrary act, prejudicial either to individual liberty, or to the civic rights of one or
more individuals, or to the Constitution of Mauritius. I deem it fit to refer to the case of DPP VS
JAGDAWOO (Supra) where the Court found it apposite to refer to the comments made by
GARCON in CODE PÉNAL ANNOTÉ, LIVRE III, CHAPITRE II and which explain the purport of
the arbitrary acts as defined under article 114 of the French Penal Code as follows:

1. “L’art 114 prévoit certains actes arbitraires commis par les fonctionnaires publics,
agents ou préposés du Gouvernement. Il garantit particulièrement la liberté
individuelle contre les abus de pouvoir des agents de l’autorité.
2. Ce texte n’incrimine pas les actes arbitraires quelconques, mais seulement ceux
qui portent atteinte aux droits qu’il énumère limitativement ; en autres termes, la
loi prévoit et punit trois sortes d’abus de pouvoir: 1o les actes attentatoires à la
liberté individuelle; 2o ceux attentatoires aux droits civiques des citoyens; 3o
enfin, ceux attentatoires à la Constitution ».

Learned Senior Counsel for the defence has submitted that the discriminatory act in
relation to the offence in the present case rests on discrimination. However, he averred that the
selection process with regards to the allocation of houses was still not over and at best, the
Accused could have been prosecuted for an inchoate offence instead of a complete offence.
11
 On this score, I have assessed with care the version of Mr Jean Francois Gilles L’Entete
who is the Chief Executive Officer of NHDC. He confirmed that the NHDC has a housing project
at Bassin road and was granted status to build 51 duplex housing units in the year 2017.
Interviews have been carried out and applications received. At the time he testified in Court, the
housing project had reached 85% completion. The process of allocation of units had started on
the 1st March 2019 and was meant to close at about the 18th August 2019.

Therefore, it is true to say that the project of allocation of houses at Bassin had reached
85% completion, which means that at the time the Accused has been charged, the allocation of
houses was not over. The question to be asked is whether the offence is completed when the
Accused gave the undertaking or when the houses are allocated in their totality?

It is noteworthy to point out that the Collins Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus defines
an act as an ‘undertaking’. Therefore, if the Accused gave an undertaking, he committed an act.
The term arbitrary is defined as ‘based on personal choice or chance, rather than reason’.
Hence, the act or undertaking would become arbitrary if it was not based on objective standard.
In the event that it is proved that the Accused uttered the words as couched in the Information, it
would mean that he committed an arbitrary act by giving an undertaking based on personal
choice rather than reasonable and objective standards, irrespective of the execution of the
undertaking. At this juncture, I deem it fit to refer to the comments made by GARCON in CODE
PÉNAL ANNOTÉ, LIVRE III, CHAPITRE II, as follows:

“Celui qui donne l’ordre d’accomplir l’acte arbitraire commet le crime de l’art 114 comme
auteur principal. Il ne doit point être considéré comme complice par provocation avec
abus d’autorité et de pouvoir. Il importerait même peu que l’ordre n’eut pas été suivi
d’effets : le crime du donneur d’ordre consiste à donner l’ordre ».

I therefore find substance in the submissions on behalf of the Prosecution that the
discriminatory act would consist in the undertaking to allocate houses in a discriminatory
manner despite the fact that the allocation of houses was not completed.

12
Was the arbitrary act prejudicial to the Constitution of Mauritius?

Learned Senior Counsel for the defence has submitted that there is no evidence of
discrimination in the present case as no witness has come forward to explain the prejudice
sustained. He argued that there must be proof of the contravention of the Constitution.
The application of Article 114 of the French Penal Code in relation to a breach of the
Constitution has been expounded by GARRAUD in TRAITÉ DU DROIT PÉNAL FRANÇAIS,
Tome Troisième at para. 32. It states:

“La troisième vise les actes contraire à la constitution, c’est-à-dire les actes qui
portent atteinte aux droits et aux libertés que la constitution reconnaît et
garantit.… … . Ce texte constitue, en quelque sorte, une sanction générale des
droits constitutionnels, contre les excès ou abus de pouvoir des représentants de
l’Etat. Il est clair que de pareilles dispositions, par cela même qu’elles sont
illimitées, sont purement comminatoires, et, tout en établissant un principe
général de répression, elles ne répriment, en réalité, aucun acte précis et
déterminé. ” … …
“Qu’est-ce en effet, qu’un acte attentatoire à la constitution? Le législateur
n’entend certainement pas, par les termes dont il se sert, un acte qui a pour but
de détruire ou de changer la constitution, puisque les faits de cette nature
rentrent dans les dispositions du titre premier, qui punit les crimes et délits contre
la sûreté de l’Etat. D’ailleurs, il s’agit, dans l’article 114, de faits qui causent un
préjudice à un individu. Ce texte s’applique donc aux actes qui portent atteinte
aux droits et libertés que la constitution reconnaît et garantit aux citoyens comme
aux étrangers”.

Applying the above legal provision to the facts of the present case, it stands to reason that the
offence couched under section 77 of the Criminal Code is in relation to an act which would
breach the Constitutional rights of an individual. In the case of DPP VS JAGDAWOO (Supra),
the Court held that:

“It is clear from the above that one cannot take a restrictive view of the application of
section 77 of the Criminal Code to the breach of any of the constitutional rights
13
 entrenched in the Constitution for the protection of an individual person. Its application
would thus extend to a breach of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution”.

Hence, an offence will subsist if an agent of the Government wilfully and unlawfully commits an
arbitrary act prejudicial to sections 16(2) and (3) of the Constitution of Mauritius. It matters not
that a witness must establish the prejudice sustained. What matters is that the act breaches the
rights of an individual, the protection of which is guaranteed by the Constitution. According to
the comments of GARCON in CODE PÉNAL ANNOTÉ, referring to Article 114 of the French
Penal Code,

“Le texte prévoit la violation de la Constitution d’une manière générale et n’exige point
que les intérêts ou les droits d’un particulier aient été spécialement violés ».

I find that the offence would be committed if there is an arbitrary act wilfully and unlawfully
committed by the Accused, as an agent of the Government, and which is prejudicial to sections
16(2) and (3) of the Constitution. I do not find that there is the need for an individual prejudice to
be established.

The charge against the Accused

Having considered the points of Law raised by Learned Senior Counsel for the defence,
I find that, in Law, the Accused was amenable for Prosecution as per the Information. However,
I have borne in mind that the charge can only be proved against the Accused if it is established
beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused actually committed the offence as couched in the
Information. For this, I have taken into account the facts of the case to determine whether the
Accused actually committed the offence for which he stands charged.

In the case of VIGIER DE LA TOUR VS THE STATE (2009) SCJ 19, the Court referred
to one of the elementary principles of justice that is “a person charged with an offence is entitled
to know with certainty and precision all the facts and circumstances so that he may be enabled
to judge whether they constitute an offence and to determine the species of offence”.

14
 In the present case, the charge constitutive of the offence against the Accused is that he
allegedly gave an undertaking to a group of persons, known as the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’,
that NHDC houses in their locality would be allocated to persons in a discriminatory manner, in
a meeting held on the 17th July 2017 and which Mr Pursun attended. In fact, Mr Pursun also
complained that the Accused used words of a discriminatory nature.

I have assessed with care the words constitutive of the charge against the Accused as
per the Information and the words which Mr Pursun alleged were used by the Accused in the
meeting of the 17th July 2017. I find that the gist of the words allegedly used by the Accused as
per the version of Mr Pursun is in line with the charge against the Accused as per the
Information.

It is noteworthy that the Court has been favoured with a DVD, a pen drive and a
transcript of the pen drive which reveal what happened in the meeting of the 17th July 2017. I
have had the opportunity to peruse same. I have borne in mind that the transcript constitutes
undisputed evidence of a faithful reproduction of the pen drive transcribed on the DVD, such
that the transcript is a faithful and reliable piece of evidence in relation to what was said at the
meeting of the 17th July 2017. I have had the opportunity to go through the full transcript with
care to be able to analyse the words allegedly used by the Accused to determine their
consistency with the charge against him.

I have come across 2 instances in the transcript when the Accused referred to a specific
race. The first one reads:

“….C’est ki bisin faire et la dans mone dire zotte pas rapport PMSA pas mettre
population generale bisin aina beaucoup hinoue la-bas, 90% hindoue, 90 % hindoue ».

I find that the above extract does not constitute an undertaking with regards to the allocation of
houses in the NHDC project and at any rate, the variance between the words in the above
extract and the charge against the Accused is so wide that I do not find that the above extract
applies to the present case.

The second extract which I came across in the transcript and which I find relevant to the
present case reads as follows:

« Moi mo pas Mo pas pou prend zotte en considération ki zotte dire…moi mo conner et
mo pé dire ou li azordi mo pancore dire sa personne mo esperé mo faire zotte confiance

15
 90% hindu….ki faire mo panne leve sa mo conscient de sa problème de Bassin la mo
pas ine décide pou amène population générale pou vinne ici pou vinne amène prostitué
pou amène sa pou faire…. »

It is these words, amongst others, which caused Mr Sivaramen to go see the Prime Minister in
November 2017.

The charge against the Accused is in relation to an undertaking given by the Accused to
a group of persons known as the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’. This undertaking is about an
allocation of houses in a discriminatory manner based on race. According to the charge against
the Accused, the latter said: “Mo donne zotte garantie….” and “ …. mone fine donne l’ordre
directive mo bane officiers, pou implemente mo directive ….”. However, a reading of the
transcript reveals that in fact, the Accused said “Mo pas pou prend zotte en considération ki
zotte dire”. At no point in the transcript can I read that the Accused gave a guarantee to the
‘Regroupement de Bassin’. There is also absolutely no mention that he gave a directive to his
officers for his order to be implemented. I find nothing in the transcript which shows that the
Accused gave a guarantee at the meeting of the 17th July 2017 or a promise that his decision
will be implemented by his officers. Hence, the words used by the Accused according to the
transcript are totally different from the version of Mr Pursun or the charge against the Accused
to the effect that he gave an undertaking for the allocation of houses and a guarantee that his
directive would be implemented.

Moreover, the charge against the Accused makes mention of 3 different communities,
namely Hindus, Muslims and the Creole community. According to the charge against the
Accused, he gave an undertaking that 90% of the allocation of the NHDC housing estate would
go to Hindus. On the other hand, I read from the transcript that the Accused said “mo esperer
mo faire zotte confiance 90% hindu…”. I find that this incomplete sentence in the transcript does
not reveal that the Accused gave a guarantee for an allocation of 90% of the housing estate to
Hindus.

In addition, the charge against the Accused specifies that the Accused stated that no
person of Muslim faith would be allocated a house in the NHDC housing project. A reading of
the transcript makes it clear that the Accused never said anything about any person of the
Muslim faith. He did not mention same at all.

16
 Finally, the charge against the Accused is clear that the Accused undertook to allocate
the remaining 10% of the NHDC housing estate to a mix of races, including people from the
Creole community, with the specificity that there would be no prostitution. On this score, I have
considered what the Accused said according to the transcript produced. He said « mo pas ine
décide pou amène population générale pou vinne ici pou vinne amène prostitué pou amène sa
pou faire…. ». In fact, I find that these words if taken on their own, may connote a
discrimination based on race in relation to the allocation of houses. However, I find that these
words do not reflect the charge against the Accused and an offence can only subsist if the
charge against the Accused is proved.

In fact, the charge against the Accused is that he said “10 pour cent ki rester la, sa nous
pou donne ca banne mélange, pou enan so creole tout la dans, et pas pou enan aucaine creole
cite ki pou vine reste la bas pou vine prostituer”. I find that the connotation to prostitution in the
charge against the Accused is in relation to the words “creole cite”. However, I find that contrary
to the charge in the Information, the Accused never used the term “creole” or “creole cite”. In
addition, according to the charge against the Accused, the latter would have restricted a figure
of 10% of the allocation of houses to some people, including people of the Creole community.
However, according to the words used by the Accused in the transcript, there is no mention of
the figure of 10 % to any specific race or community. It is clear that there is a variance between
the words as set out in the Information and the evidence as per the transcript produced.

The test to determine the nature of the variance has been laid down in the case of
CARPEN VS THE STATE (2010) SCJ 105, where the Court said that the words must be:
“essentially to the same effect and convey the same idea and expression of abuse”.

However, the Court has a duty to consider whether the variance is so slight or so
material as to affect the veracity of the Prosecution case. In the case of SEELOCHUN S.G. VS
THE STATE (2018 SCJ 178), the Appeal Court held:

“Tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court should not be cited as mere
clichés but must be applied in practice so that the conclusions reached on the particular
facts of any given case are clear”. And

“Should trial Courts hide behind the empty formula that there was only ‘a slight variance’
between the words of the information and what a complainant said in Court when such

17
 variance was actually substantial, there is a high risk of convicting accused parties
against whom the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. This, in our view would open the floodgates and set a wrong precedent in the
practice of criminal law”.
In the present case, I find that a holistic reading of the words in the charge against the
Accused as compared to the words in the transcript shows that the variance between the words
is substantial. I find that the words in the transcript do not reveal that the Accused gave an
undertaking or a directive that 90% of the housing estate would go to Hindus, that no Muslim
would be allocated a housing unit and that only 10% of the housing estate would include the
Creole community. In fact, I do not find anywhere in the transcript the integrality of the words as
per the charge in the Information. The Accused never used the impugned words continuously, in
one flow, in continuous lines, as alleged in the Information. I find that the evidence as per the
transcript produced is not in line with the charge in the Information and I find that the
Prosecution has failed to come to proof to establish that the Accused uttered the impugned
words.

Mens rea of the Accused

I have considered the context in which the words were used at the meeting of the 17th
July 2017. The reality of the case is that the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’ was against the
construction of the NHDC Housing project since they associated same with social evils. On the
22nd May 2017, a Notice “Mise en Demeure” was served on the Chief Executive and Chief
Planner of the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes and the NHDC by the ‘Regroupement de
Bassin’ acting through their representative and proxy, Mr Seewa Jankoo. They expressed their
disagreement and objection against the issue of any building and land permit and/or any other
permit for the construction of the residential units by the NHDC on the grounds that:

(i) it was an illegal construction;

(ii) it would have an adverse effect on the social and environmental surroundings;

(iii) it was likely to disturb the peace of the existing owners who had invested heavily
and whose property were likely to suffer a devaluation;

18
 (iv) it would interfere with the quietness and peace of the existing residents and their
spiritual park;

(v) the 200 other landowners, had since January 2017, been communicating with
Councillors of the Municipal Council regarding the setting up of a wellness
centre, as was done at Sodnac and La Source and;

(vi) the whole of Bassin region comprising a population of 35,000 persons were
against the development taking place near Bassin River.

On the 9th June 2017, a meeting was held at the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes in
the presence of the Mayor of the Council, Municipal Councilors, representatives of MHL,
representatives of NHDC and residents of Bassin road. The latter expressed their strong
disagreement against the project on the grounds that:

(i) they believed that the people who would come to live in the NHDC
housing estate would disturb the security of the residents who use the
area for prayers and physical exercises. They feared that the new
residents might induce in the use and dealing of drugs and other illegal
activities, spoiling the environment;

(ii) they considered the neighbouring river to be sacred and that the NHDC
project would tamper with their traditions and pollute the river and the
religious places;

(iii) they claimed that following the implementation of the NHDC project, the
value of their plots would decrease significantly and that some of the
residents are already evacuating the area.

On the 20th June 2017, the inhabitants of Bassin caused an injunction to be lodged
against the Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes, the NHDC and the MHL. Therein they referred
to an Impact Assessment Report drawn up by a Real estate consultant of Primepillar, Valuation
Services Ltd detailing the negative impact of the low income housing associated with the NHDC
construction project in Bassin.

19
 The meeting of the 17th July 2017 was held in consequence of the concern,
disagreement and anger of the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’ in relation to the NHDC Housing
project. The gist of the meeting consisted in highlighting the problems associated with the
project. Mr Pursun raised the issue of social evils associated with housing estates like Cite
Kennedy. Similarly, he argued that the housing estate in Bassin would bring along social evils,
like drugs, prostitution, thefts, and a degradation of life in Bassin. He was the first one to
pinpoint that the majority of the inhabitants of Cite Kennedy belongs to the Creole community.

The intervention of the Accused came as a response to the qualms raised by the
‘Regroupement de Bassin’. He intervened to state that the fears of the ‘Regroupement de
Bassin’ was misconceived since the housing project of Bassin would shelter people of good
background who would not bring any social evil in the region of Bassin. The Accused explained
that the houses would be beautiful and of good standard. He asked the ‘Regroupement de
Bassin’ to consider the needs of others who would need the housing estate.

The gist of the conversation between the Accused and the ‘Regroupement de Bassin’
reveals that the Accused was advocating the need and the reasons for the allocation of the
housing estate to different social classes of the society. It was a reassurance that he would not
bring people to introduce social evils in the region of Bassin.

I have also noted the testimony of the president of the Kali Mata Mandir situated in
Bassin. The President is Mr Aukhez and he undisputedly stated that the Accused gave
monetary donations and materials to the temple. He did so around the years 2013 and 2014.
This sheds light on the positive mens rea of the Accused.

In view of the above, I find that the charge against the Accused is different from what he
said in the meeting according to the transcript produced. I find that the transcript gives the lie to
the version of the Prosecution. Having said that, I have noted that the clip lasts for about thirty
minutes and the meeting lasted for about an hour. For the sake of completeness, I shall now
consider the credibility of the main Prosecution witness, Mr Pursun, to determine the plausibility
of the words having been said by the Accused beyond the contents of the clip.

The credibility of Mr Pursun

20
 I have paid particular attention to the version of Mr Pursun in relation to what the
Accused said at the meeting of the 17th July 2017. I have borne in mind that “cross-examination
of a witness in Court is not a memory test which the witness must pass before his evidence can
be accepted and relied upon” (RE: DHUNNY VS R (1991) SCJ 145) ; (EMAMBUX M. A. VS
THE STATE (2010) SCJ 304). I have therefore measured the discrepancies in the version of Mr
Pursun by “the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall
issue of truthfulness”. (RE: SAMAN G. VS THE STATE (2004) SCJ 3).

Mr Pursun was a political leader for a political party previously called Mouvement Anti
Dynastie (MAD) and now called Mauritian National Congress (MNC). He joined the
‘Regroupement de Bassin’ after an injunction and a Mise en Demeure were served to try to stop
the NHDC housing project at a specific site in Bassin. He participated in a manifestation where
he carried banners directed against the Accused. In his testimony, Mr Pursun compared the
area of Bassin to what Sodnac is in Quatre Bornes. However, he conceded in cross-
examination that there is an NHDC housing estate called Villeneuve adjoining Avenue Hill
Crest, which is the main avenue in Sodnac, despite the fact that in Sodnac, like in Bassin, there
are women walking, people jogging as well as a religious place like a mosque.

I have noted that, in cross-examination, Mr Pursun conveniently tried to stick to the side
of caution. Indeed, Learned Senior Counsel for the defence asked him about whether the Kali
Mata Mandir in Bassin was a place of worship for inhabitants of Bassin. Mr Pursun replied that
God is a national figure. Mr Pursun also maintained that he was jobless but when confronted
with the fact that he had a catering business in the Food Court of Quatre Bornes, he averred
that he did own a spot at the Food Court but the business was not flourishing. Learned Senior
Counsel for the defence pressed on to state that Mr Pursun had a catering business called
Vrinda Khana Khazana but the latter denied same and said that it belonged to his sister-in-law.
It was only when he was cornered in cross-examination that he told the police in his statement
dated the 10th November 2017 that he managed a catering business called Vrinda Khana
Khazana that Mr Pursun admitted that he managed the place in the sense that he transported
items to and from the catering spot. In the circumstances, I find that Mr Pursun failed to give
direct answers when he was cross-examined.

Mr Pursun was also questioned about his testimony when he said that he was the
president of the Swastika club in Bassin and he performed Ramayana and religious
ceremonies. Learned Senior Counsel for the defence asked Mr Pursun whether these
21
ceremonies and the Ramayana formed part of Hindu customs and Mr Pursun replied in the
negative. He tried to explain that Bhagwat Gita and Hare Rama Hare Krishna are general
concepts being followed in America and the structure of Hinduism is general.

Mr Pursun explained that he performed Yaj, which he described as a ritual but refused to
state that it was a practice in the Hindu community. He agreed that he testified that he was a
Hindu priest who performed religious ceremonies and activities but when asked about same in
cross-examination, he changed his version to state that he is a priest in general, for the sake of
the name only.

In view of the above, it transpires that the answers given by Mr Pursun reflect a caution
not to stray from non-committal answers. He even went to the extent of saying that the Bible
and the Quran were written in India. I find that Mr Pursun fails to come across as a credible
witness.

In addition, Mr Pursun told the Court that he was the Deputy General Manager in Outer
Islands Development Corporation but as soon as the present Government came in power, he
was dismissed on the ground that he was a political agent for the Labour Party. However, it has
been brought to light that Mr Pursun was dismissed in the year 2015 and the present
Government came in power in the year 2014 such that there is no conclusive evidence as to
when and why Mr Pursun was dismissed.

Mr Pursun testified that at the meeting of the 17th July 2017, the Accused stated the
following words to Mr Sookun before he allegedly uttered the words constitutive of the charge
against him, namely: « ki ti trouvé to ene MSM to pe faire ene désordre. To pe contre ça projet
là. Et sa même to pan vine le Maire. To ti ena pou vine le Maire, sa même façon ki ton perdi to
sans vine le Maire ? » However, I have perused the transcript reflective of the unfolding of the
meeting of the 17th July 2017 and I do not find that these words have been mentioned by the
Accused. I therefore find that the reliability of the version of Mr Pursun to be questionable.

I shall now deal with the statements given by Mr Pursun to the police. Mr Pursun gave 3
statements to the police. He gave a first statement on the 10th November 2017, the second one
on the 20th November 2017 and a third one on the 10th January 2018. He explained that the
contents of the second statement dated the 20th November 2017 are false because he was
forced to lie. Much was said about the time at which Mr Pursun gave the statement dated the
20th November 2017 but CPL Caroopen who came to Court in his capacity as a police officer on
22
duty at the material time, clarified that Mr Pursun gave his statement on the 20th November
2017 from 20 25 to 21 05 hours. I have no reason to doubt the version of CPL Caroopen as
being true.

In relation to the statement dated the 20th November 2017, Mr Pursun explained that his
brother-in-law, Mr Badaye, called him to meet him and 2 people in Jumbo Phoenix. However, I
note that Mr Pursun stated in cross-examination that when he met Mr Badaye and other people
prior to the statement of the 20th November 2017 at Jumbo Phoenix, they had a friendly
discussion where he was asked to withdraw the case against the Accused. They then
proceeded to Vacoas and he was offered money, starting from 1 million rupees to 5 million
rupees.

In view of the above, I find that the conversation between Mr Pursun, Mr Badaye and the
two other people was friendly. This sheds doubt on the version of Mr Pursun that he felt forced,
coerced, kidnapped and trapped by Mr Badaye and his friends to go to the CCID to give a
contradictory statement against the Accused.

There are 3 roads which give access to the Line Barracks Police Headquarters where
the CCID is located in Port Louis. One is from Rue Deschartes, one is from Rue Jemmap and a
third one is from Rue Moka. At night, Rue Deschartes and Rue Jemmap are closed. Mr Pursun
explained that he went inside in company of Mr Badaye and his friends from Rue Moka.
Learned Senior Counsel for the defence put to Mr Pursun that cars cannot access the Line
Barracks Police Headquarters through Rue Moka at night but Mr Pursun maintained that they
went inside by car.

He reached the CCID where he met the police officer who called him. It was again put to
Mr Pursun that the CCID is closed at night but Mr Pursun insisted that one police officer was
deputed by the Commissioner of Police to await him. He then added that at the time he gave his
statement, two police officers were present. It is the version of Mr Pursun that he felt the police
officers were in an inner circle and he lost trust in the institution. I have noted that at the time Mr
Pursun gave his statement on the 20th November 2017, the people accompanying Mr Pursun
waited outside.

It is the version of Mr Pursun that Mr Badaye and his friends asked him to level a charge
against Honourable Xavier Duval to the effect that the Accused did not commit the offence but it
was Honourable Xavier Duval who asked him to inculpate the Accused. Mr Pursun contended
23
that he feared for his life. Nonetheless, despite the fear, I find that Mr Pursun did not obey what
Mr Badaye and his friends allegedly told him to do. Instead, he made up his own lies to tell the
police that Honourable Xavier Duval came to see him in the midst of a political campaign on the
6th November 2017 and urged him to denounce to the police the words used by the Accused in
the meeting of the 17th July 2017. He conceded that in truth and in fact, he never met up with
Honourable Xavier Duval.

I find that Mr Pursun failed to come across as a witness of truth. I find that he
unhesitantly lied to the police by concocting a story about Honourable Xavier Duval. At the time
he did so, he was in the midst of the CCID in company of two police officers, secluded from
people who were allegedly putting pressure on him. I find that the lie of Mr Pursun when he was
under the protection of the police shatters the credibility of Mr Pursun.

It is the version of Mr Pursun that he felt threatened at the CCID and he lost his trust in
the police force. However, it is strange that despite this, Mr Pursun never effected any complaint
against the CCID officers. In fact, Mr Pursun swore an affidavit on the 24th November 2017 to
expose the alleged happenings of the 20th November 2017 but he never once made mention of
the police officers whose actions shocked him. I find that this sheds serious doubt on the
credibility of Mr Pursun. I find that I cannot rely on the version of Mr Pursun.

In the same affidavit, he averred that after he gave the false statement of the 20th
November 2017, he was driven back to Jumbo Phoenix and saw a car of make “Jaguar” of dark
colour and the occupier of the car looked like the Accused. However, I have perused the
records of cars owned by the Accused and his family for the period of 2005 to 2019, produced in
Court by Mr Rawootchia, Senior Road Transport Inspector, and I could not establish any link
between the car of make “Jaguar” as described by Mr Pursun to the Accused.

In the circumstances, I find the version of Mr Pursun to lack credibility and is unsafe to
be relied upon to determine the charge against the Accused.

The NHDC

I have taken note that the NHDC is a company with the shareholders being the
Government of Mauritius (99.5%), the State Investment Corporation Ltd (0.3 %) and the State
Insurance Company of Mauritius Ltd (0.2%). Although the majority shareholding of the NHDC is

24
the Government of Mauritius, with the parent ministry being the Ministry of Housing and Lands,
the NHDC remains a private company regulated by its Board of Directors, a Chairman and
managed by the Board of Management. Mr L’Entete is the Chief Executive Officer of NHDC and
he explained that the land for housing estate is obtained from the Sugar Estate which is put at
the disposal of the Ministry of Housing and Lands by the Government.

It is noteworthy to point out that the Accused does not form part of the Board of Directors
or the Board of Management of NHDC. In fact, Mr L’Entete’s testimony revealed an
independence on the part of the NHDC in the selection and allocation of houses in the NHDC
project at Bassin. He explained that applicants who wish to be allocated a housing unit are
selected following their applications supported by their National Identity Card number and proof
of address, status, marital status and the number of children they have. These applicants are
then subjected to an interview. Mr L’Entete unequivocally stated under oath that the Accused
never gave him any instructions with regards the allocation of houses in the NHDC housing
project in Bassin. In the circumstances, I find that there is a lack of evidence connecting the
charge to the Accused in as much as there is no evidence that the Accused committed an
arbitrary act prejudicial to sections 16(2) and (3) of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above, I find that the Prosecution has failed to establish that the Accused,
whilst being an agent of the Government, wilfully and unlawfully committed an arbitrary act
prejudicial to sections 16(2) and (3) of the Constitution of Mauritius. I find that the Prosecution
has failed to prove that the Accused committed an offence of abuse of authority by public officer
in breach of section 77 of the Criminal Code.

I find that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I
dismiss the case against the Accused.

Judgment delivered by: M.GAYAN-JAULIMSING, Magistrate, Intermediate Court

Judgment delivered on: 25th September 2019

25
26