Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 avril 2026, 2026 LPW 12 – Police v Rye Doohita RAMDENEE

1

Police v Rye Doohita RAMDENEE

2026 LPW 12

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of: CN 3561/21

POLICE

V

Rye Doohita RAMDENEE

JUDGMENT 1. The accused stands charged with the offences of larceny [count 1] and possession of stolen property [count 2] pursuant to sections 301 and 40 of the Criminal Code.

2. She pleaded not guilty and was legally represented.

3. The case for the prosecution was conducted by prosecuting counsel.

4. The charge levelled against the accused is that, on the 26 th August 2020, she unlawfully and fraudulently abstracted certain articles to wit: Mauritian currency worth Rs22,500, a mobile phone make Samsung and booklet receipt, all worth Rs32,500, not belonging to her.

The case for the prosecution 5. Three witnesses have deponed on behalf of the prosecution.

6. Witness no.1 – inspector Fazullah – deposed to the effect that on the 22 nd December 2020, he met with the accused at the police station of Rose Hill and after the accused was duly cautioned and explained of her constitutional rights, two defence statement were recorded from her and such statements were voluntarily given and signed by the accused. In court, the statements were identified, read and produced without any objection. The defence statements of the accused were marked Doc A and A1.

7. Witness no.1 also explained that on the same day, a search was carried out at the dwelling house of the accused after the latter was explained of her rights and with her consent. During the search, the accused voluntarily remitted to witness no.1 three booklet receipts which witness no.1 identified in court and produced without objection. The three booklet receipts were marked Doc B, B1 and B2.

8. Furthermore, witness no.1 explained that on the same day, he carried out an identification exercise after the accused was explained of her constitutional rights and the different options of identification, following which the accused opted for a direct confrontation. She was thus confronted to witnesses 2 and 3 who both positively identified the accused.

9. As part of the police enquiry, witness no.1 mentioned that several other persons who were present during the alleged incident were also contacted but all refused to give a statement to the police in relation to the present matter.

10. In cross-examination, the following was elicited from witness no.1: a. the sum of money which was allegedly stolen were contributions of members of the political party “Mouvement Patriotique”; b. that Doc B, B1 and B2 were receipts given to members of “Mouvement Patriotique” after they have already effected payment; c. that the sum of Rs21,500 had been stolen to the prejudice of the political party and not witness no.3; d. that on the 26 th August 2020, the police attended a request of Mr Barbier to calm things down at the reunion of the political party.

11. Witness no.3 was the treasurer of the political party “Mouvement Patriotique”. On the 26 th

August 2020, he mentioned that the party had its regular meeting in Quatre Bornes in presence of the president Mr Jean Claude Barbier. As usual, political issues, financial issues and planning were discussed and when they were discussing about the activities of the party, two members who had been absenting themselves for the past 3-4 months arrived and there was a state of unrest (‘bousculade’) as the president Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee did not want those two members to attend the meeting whereas the majority of the members accepted the presence of those two members. Since the majority of the members disagreed with Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee, the meeting was proceeded with despite grievances from Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee.

12. Then, Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee started to disrupt the meeting by pushing members and swearing and Mrs Ramdenee switched off the lights on numerous occasions to prevent the meeting from proceeding further.

13. The majority of the members who were present decided then to vote for a new president and secretary and therefore Mr Jean Claude Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee were removed as president and secretary respectively and Mr Anupam Kandhai and Dr Rambaran were appointed as new president and new secretary whereas witness no.3 remained the treasurer.

14. At that point, both Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee were angry about their removal and became very violent and they started swearing, pushing chairs. Suddenly Mr Barbier threw himself on the table where witness no.3 was seated in an attempt to stop the meeting.

15. On that table, there were articles belonging to the political party and to witness no.3. Witness no.3 mentioned two booklets for the treasurer of colour green and one booklet containing the inflow and outflow of money of colour grey wrapping a sum of money Rs22,000. There was also the mobile phone of witness no.3 and in the cover of the phone a sum of Rs1000 belonging to witness no.3 and his car key.

16. At the table where witness no.3 was seated, there was the new president and new secretary and opposite the table there was Mrs Ramdenee standing. When Mr Barbier threw himself on the table, the table overturned towards Mrs Ramdenee on the other side. Mr Barbier fell on the ground, as well as all the articles that were on the table.

17. Witness no.3 saw Mrs Ramdenee picking up the booklets (‘carnets’) and the articles which fell on the ground following the overturning of the table. Witness no.3 helped Mr Barbier back on his feet and then went towards Mrs Ramdenee to get back the articles that she picked up but she stated: “non, ca m’appartient maintenant”. Witness no.3 stated that he could see the articles protruding from her handbag at that time and she refused to return the articles.

18. Mr Barbier called the police station and the police arrived on spot. Since Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee were aggressive and uncooperative, the police requested witness no.3 and the others to go outside the premises to calm things down. They exited the bureau and once outside, witness no.3 mentioned that a police officer remitted to him his keys so that he could leave the premises. He asked the police officer about his phone but the latter informed him that he could not see any phone. Witness no.3 told the police officer that Mrs Ramdenee took it and witness no.3 was requested to leave and that he could recover it at a later stage.

19. Since then, members including witness no.3 tried to contact Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee to recover all the articles including witness no.3’s phone but they could not recover same. Witness no.3 stated in court that his phone contained photos of his mother which are a souvenir to him.

20. Witness no.3 mentioned that the fact that money was lost had a bad effect on his credibility as treasurer and the more so as Mr Barbier made people believe that he took the money away.

21. Witness no.3 was lengthily cross-examined and the gist of the cross-examination is as follows: a. That when Mr Ganoo contracted a political alliance in 2019, Mr Barbier became the new president and he was still the president of the party; b. That the office of the Electoral Commissioner split the group in two and that there was a Supreme Court case preventing one Tania Diolle or any of her préposés/agents to use the symbol of the “rose” and the name “movement patriotique”’; c. That on the agenda of the 26 th August 2020, there was no item for the election of new president and secretary nor executive members; d. That the election of new president and secretary on item AOB [any other business] was illegal; e. That the sum Rs22,000 belonged to ‘mouvement patriotique’ and that the witness did not provide any document to the police to show that he was duly authorised to represent the party; f. That although he mentioned that both accused and Mr Barbier were violent, in his statement he mentioned only Mr Barbier was violent; g. That in his statement he did not mention car key although he mentioned ‘carnet recu tresorier’; h. That in his statement he did not mention that he asked the police officer to fetch his car key and phone; i. That in a ‘mise en demeure’ served upon Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee, witness no.3 did not mention that he asked the police to fetch his car key and phone; j. That in his statement he mentioned the word ‘ramasser’ whereas in the mise en demeure the word ‘snatch’ is used; k. That the incident occurred on the 26 th August 2020 and the complaint was only made on the 5 th October 2020; l. That in his three statements no mention was made of any video of the incident;

m. That when Mr Ganoo left ‘mouvement patriotique’, he formed another party and that witness no.3 was seen in political events organised by Mr Ganoo in February 2021; n. That he levelled a baseless accusation against accused as he wanted Mr Ganoo to get the political party as Mr Ganoo could no longer use the symbol of the ‘rose’.

22. Witness no.2 related that he was a member of the political party ‘mouvement patriotique’ and that on the 26 th August 2020, he attended a meeting at St Jean Road, Quatre Bornes. During the meeting, upon reaching the AOB [Any other business] item on the agenda, the members were not in agreement with Mr Barbier as president and on the spot they voted for another president. Then Mr Barbier jumped on the table and things belonging to the treasurer fell, especially books, booklet (‘carnet’), money and other personal belongings. Mrs Ramdenee started picking things up from the floor and when it was time to return everything to the treasurer, Mrs Ramdenee refused and stated “non, ca m’appartient maintenant” and put the articles in her bag.

23. In cross-examination, the following salient points were addressed: a. That the money whether Rs22,500 or Rs21,500 represented fees paid by members of the party, therefore belonging to the party but was entrusted to the treasurer; b. That he only saw accused picking up things from the floor and cannot say what other people told the police; c. That the party was split in two and there was a dispute regarding the use of the symbol and the court prevented Mr Ganoo from using the symbol ‘la rose’; d. That in 2021 he attended a meeting organised by Mr Ganoo and that witness no.3 was also present.

The Defence case 24. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused made a statement from the dock and stated that she was innocent in this case. She related that during the incident which cropped up during a meeting of the political party at Quatre Bornes, she was taking minutes of the meeting as secretary when two members who had been absent for nine months without paying their membership fees appeared and sat among them. The president Mr Barbier requested them to leave but they refused and the president then adjourned the meeting for next week.

25. A few members protested and wanted to continue with the meeting to vote for a new team and this item was not on the agenda. The president informed the members that this item will be inserted on the agenda for next week but these people, namely Mr Beekomsingh, Mr Kandhai, Mr Roopun, Dr Rambarun and other people were unhappy. Mr Barbier then phoned the police and the police arrived but, in the meantime, these people continued to vote for a new team and the president told them to stop and he punched the table in the middle. As it was a folding table, the tabled folded and all the documents on the table fell. She picked up the three booklets (‘carnets de recu’) which were on the floor and put them in her bag. She stated that there was nothing else.

26. The case was closed for the defence.

The gist of the submissions before this court 27. Both counsel for the prosecution and the defence offered oral submissions before court. In a gist, counsel for the prosecution submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there were items which were recovered from the accused during the enquiry. Furthermore, it was submitted that the witnesses who deponed withstood the test of cross-examination.

28. On the other hand, defence counsel submitted that both counts should be dismissed against the accused and several reasons were put forward, as follows: a. That the money Rs21,500 and the booklet receipts belonged to Mouvement Patriotique and not witness no.3; b. That the alleged offence was committed on 26 th August 2020 and a declaration was made only on 5 th October 2020 and it was on 20 th April 2021 that witness no.3 explained the delay; c. That witness no.3 mentioned that the accused ‘picked up’ the phone in his statement to the police whereas in the notice mise-en-demeure which witness no.3 served on the accused, the word ‘snatch’ was used; d. That other persons who were present on the day of the incident were not called by the prosecution although the enquiry officer mentioned they would come to court; e. That witness no.3 did not inform the police officer on spot about the items which accused allegedly misappropriated; f. That there was motive of a ‘false allegation’ inasmuch as there was a dispute with regards to the use of the name ‘Mouvement Patriotique’ and the use of the

symbol ‘the rose’ and witnesses nos 2 and 3 were seen in political events organised by Mr Ganoo and Mrs Diolle; g. That a mobile phone could be located by its IMEI and the police have not verified same; h. That witness no.3 did not prove that he was the owner of a mobile phone of brand Samsung.

Analysis 29. I have considered all the evidence on record, including the testimony of the witnesses, their answers in cross-examination as well as their demeanour in court. I have also considered the out-of-court versions of the accused party as well as her statement from the dock. I have also considered the submissions offered by counsel appearing for each side.

30. It is trite principle that the testimony of a witness should not be considered as a monolithic block but that the court is entitled to accept parts of a testimony found to be reliable and to reject other parts found to be doubtful [vide Ramcharran v Queen 1977 MR 226].

31. Furthermore, it is also well-established that a court can rely on the sole and uncorroborated evidence of a witness found to be reliable and credible [vide Paruit v R 1968 MR 37 and Botte v R 1968 MR 80] and that it is where there are witnesses who may have an improper motive or an interest of their own to serve that there is a need for a corroboration warning [DPP v Subrattee 2010 SCJ 207].

a. Has it been shown that witness no.3 had an improper motive to level a false case against the accused? 32. In the deposition of witness no.3, it is admitted that Mr Ganoo was the president of ‘mouvement patriotique’ and that in the year 2019, Mr Ganoo contracted a political alliance and Mr Barbier then became the president. There was a dispute with regards to the use of the name of the party and its symbol and the office of the electoral commissioner decided to split the group in two. Witness no.3 stated that he was not aware of the Supreme court order in the case lodged by Mr Barbier and Mrs Ramdenee against Tania Diolle but he saw the news in the media.

33. Witness no.3 also admitted that in February 2021, he participated in a political event organised by the political party of Mr Ganoo and stated that he was invited to attend that event and he did so, just like he attended other events organised by other parties such as the PTR and the MSM. He denied that he levelled a false case against the accused as he wanted to give ‘mouvement patriotique’ back to Mr Ganoo.

34. When the court has considered this line of cross-examination and the answers provided by the witness, the court can safely arrive at the conclusion that the evidence on record does not show that witness no.3 had any axe to grind. It has not been shown what connection and/or relationship there was between witness no.3 and Mr Ganoo for witness no.3 to want to hand the party back to the said Mr Ganoo. Suffice it to say that when Mr Ganoo left to contract an alliance in 2019, witness no.3 stayed as the party treasurer and no evidence has been adduced or elicited on what relationship Mr Ganoo held with any other person who remained in the ‘mouvement patriotique’, including witness no.3. The fact that there was a legal battle in relation to the use of the symbol and the name of the party goes on to show that there was a rift between the people who remained in ‘mouvement patriotique’ and the group led by Mr Ganoo, thus showing no real connection between Mr Ganoo and witness no.3. On the other hand, the incident which cropped up during the political meeting of the ‘mouvement patriotique’ party revolved purely around internal issues between the existing members. It has been elicited in evidence that two members who had been absent from the party decided to join the meeting on that day, sparking the disagreement of the president Mr Barbier. This clearly had nothing to do with Mr Ganoo, had nothing to do with witness no.3 or his alleged desire to hand over the party to Mr Ganoo. The allegation that witness no.3 wanted to hand over the party back to Mr Ganoo is inconsistent with the evidence on record and has no factual foundation.

b. The reason behind the delay in reporting the case and failure to mention the video recording

35. The witness was also cross-examined about the length of time between the incident and the date on which he reported the matter. When the court has considered the replies of witness no.3 in cross-examination, the court finds the answers given by witness no.3 to be very sensible indeed. Witness no.3 explained that, in the face of the dispute, it was about settling the matter amicably without reporting a case of theft. It was when no concrete result materialised that witness no.3 decided to go ahead with the case. The court finds no reason not to accept the explanations of witness no.3.

36. It was also put to witness no.3 that he gave three statements and in none of the statements did he mention that there was a video recording of the incident which occurred on the material day. In his reply, witness no.3 mentioned that he did not want the video to circulate as it was about preserving the reputation of the political party, the moreso that they were all friends and the video contained swearwords. The said video does not form part of the court record and nothing more was said about the said video. The questions about the video bear no relevance

to the court’s assessment of the credibility of the witness, safe and except that it goes on to show that witness no.3 was quite protective of the reputation of the political party that he as well as accused formed part of at the material time.

c. The prosecution not calling other witnesses 37. In her submissions, defence counsel mentioned that the prosecution failed to call as witnesses other persons who were present during the incident. 38. At this stage, it is perhaps noteworthy for this court to point out that it is for the prosecution to decide on whose testimony to rely to prove its case as in a criminal matter, it is the prosecution which has the carriage of the proceedings. If the prosecution had initiated the present matter with only three witnesses on its list of witnesses, it is the prerogative of the prosecution and no adverse comment can be made of that.

39. Although the defence is not legally compelled to, if ever the defence believed that it was relevant to call other persons as witnesses, the defence was entitled to do so as part of its case. d. The police did not locate the phone using the IMEI 40. In submissions, the defence mentioned that it was possible for the police to locate the mobile phone using the IMEI but the police failed to do so as part of the enquiry. This is a misconceived line of submission when compared to the testimony of witness no.1

41. Witness no.1 clearly stated in court that the IMEI could be used to know whose sim card, if any, had been inserted in the phone and not the location of the phone. In the absence of any other piece of evidence to the contrary, the court has to accept the answer of the enquiry officer. e. The elements of the offence of larceny 42. The defence has challenged the case for the prosecution on the principal ground that the booklets (‘carnet recu trésorier’) and the money belonged to ‘mouvement patriotique’ and not witness no.3 and that witness no.3 failed to produce any document to show that he was authorised to give a statement or to depone on behalf of ‘mouvement patriotique’.

43. It is undisputed that when the incident occurred on the 26 th August 2020, witness no.3 was the treasurer of the political party ‘mouvement patriotique’ and the evidence on record, be it from witness no.3 himself or from witness no.2, also establishes that as treasurer, witness no.3 was entrusted with the booklets of the party which contained money belonging to the party. Witness no.3 was perfectly entitled, from the evidence on record, to hold the booklets and money on behalf of the political party and the court finds it absurd that for a person to

report a case of larceny on behalf of another group of persons and/or an association, that a mandate is required from that group of persons or that association.

44. This argument is neither here nor there as in a case of larceny, it is immaterial whether the abstraction had occurred from the hands of the owner himself or from any other ‘légitime détenteur’. Reference is made to the case of Teeluck v R 1986 MR 84 where the author Garaud 1 defined one of the constitutive elements of the offence of larceny as follows:

“Une soustraction c'est donc, tout à la fois, une appréhension et un enlèvement. Aussi la Cour de cassation décide "qu'il ne peut y avoir lieu à l'application des lois pénales sur le vol, qu'autant que la chose enlevée à autrui a été soustraite, c'est-à-dire appréhendée contre le gré du propriétaire"; que "le vol consiste à soustraire frauduleusement la chose d'autrui; d'où il suit qu'il n'y a vol, dans le sens de la loi, que lorsque la chose, objet du délit, passe de la possession du légitime détenteur dans celle de l'auteur de délit à l’insu et contre le gré du premier; pour soustraire, it faut prendre, enlever, ravir”.

45. As treasurer of ‘mouvement patriotique’, witness no.3 was the ‘légitime détenteur’ of the booklets and the money belonging to the party.

46. Furthermore, the jurisprudence goes further to provide that it is not even a requirement that the ownership of the stolen article has to be established so long as the stolen article belonged to someone other than the accused himself.

47. In that regard, the court refers to a very old case of Pillay v King 1942 MR 122, where the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Further, it would appear from the authorities cited hereunder that it is not absolutely essential in order to prove the commission of a larceny that the witnesses for the prosecution should be able to testify to the loss of the articles said to have been stolen, or to the ownership thereof. Article 301 of the Penal Code enacts that ‘any person who fraudulently abstracts anything not belonging to himself shall be guilty of larceny…”

48. In that case, the Supreme Court also referred to Garcon, code penal annoté, art. 379, notes 388 and 523 as follows:

1 Droit penal francais, 3eme edition, volume 6, paragraph 2373, page 105

“388 – Celui qui s’empare d’une chose, sachant qu’elle appartient à autrui, est punissable, alors même qu’il ignorerait quel est le propriétaire. La poursuite n’a donc pas à rechercher ce propriétaire, et à determiner exactement à qui appartient l’objet dont le voleur s’est emparé. Il faut, mais il suffit, qu’à n’en point douter, elle ne soit pas sans maître.” “523 – Le juge ne peut pas être obligé, sous peine de nullité, de constater quel est le propriétaire légitime de la chose soustraite; il est possible qu’il soit inconnu. Ce point est d’autant plus sûr que le texte exige seulement que la chose n’appartienne pas à l’auteur de la soustraction.”

49. Witness no.3 was therefore perfectly entitled, in the position that he held within the party at the material time, to report the matter to the police at the material time as he was the one who was entrusted with these articles belonging to the political party. It was immaterial that he was himself not the owner of the booklets or the money.

50. The court will now turn to the out-of-court version of the accused. In her defence statement, the accused admitted that she took the booklets with her but denied having taken the sum of Rs22,500 and the mobile phone of witness no.3. Moreover, it has been established by witness no.1 that a search was carried out at the dwelling house of the accused during the course of the enquiry whereby the accused voluntarily remitted to the police the three booklets which she took on the material day. This is admitted by accused in her defence statement and the booklets were also produced during the trial. In her out-of-court version, the accused stated that she picked up those three booklets upon the instructions given by Mr Jean Claude Barbier and the latter also told her not to remit same to the treasurer, that is, witness no.3. She also mentioned that she did not find it important to remit those booklets to witness no.3 because those booklets belonged to the party and when the president of the party told her not to return those booklets, she decided not to do so.

51. The court cannot accept that version for a few reasons. Firstly, after an anxious analysis of the lengthy cross-examination through which all prosecution witnesses went through, at no point in time was it put to any of the prosecution witnesses that the accused was entitled to hold on to the booklets as being instructed by Mr Barbier. Secondly, that version of the accused has remained an unsworn version whereas, on the other hand, witnesses no. 2 and 3 deposed under oath and withstood the test of cross-examination. In that regard, the court can only reiterate a trite principle enunciated in the case of DPP v Nepaulsing 2012 SCJ 490 that an unsworn testimony cannot compare to sworn evidence and as such has less cogency and weight than sworn evidence. Thirdly, the court notes that when the accused made her statement from the dock in court, she stated things in court which she never mentioned in her

defence statement. For instance, in her defence statement, the accused was very economical with regards to details as to how the booklets fell. It was in court and from the dock that she explained how Mr Barbier punched the table and the table folded and the things which were on the table fell on the ground. She also never mentioned in her defence statement that the members of ‘mouvement patriotique’ proceeded with a vote to elect a new president and secretary. It was in court and from the dock that she mentioned so. For those reasons, I cannot ascribe much weight to the accused’s defence statements, save and except that they are consistent with the fact that the accused took three booklets on the material day.

f. What about the mobile phone and the sum of Rs22,500? 52. During the deposition of witness no.3, he mentioned that, over and above the booklets, there were also his mobile phone, Rs1000 in the cover of his mobile phone, and a sum of Rs22,000 which he kept in one of the booklets.

53. It is true that different sums of money have been mentioned during the trial. For instance, during the cross-examination of witness no.1, the latter was referred to the out-of-court versions of both witnesses no.2 and 3. It was put to him that witness no.2 mentioned Rs21,500 in one statement and Rs22,500 in another statement. It was also put to the enquiry officer that witness no.3 mentioned a sum of Rs21,500.

54. However, whilst deponing in court, witness no.3 mentioned the sum of Rs22,000 and the latter was not cross-examined about the disparity in the amount mentioned in his statement. In the absence of any cross-examination regarding the amount, the court has to accept the sum mentioned in court as being the sum of money which was contained in the third booklet. It is evident that there is a variance between the sum particularised in the information and the evidence on record. The court will deal with such variance at a later stage in this judgment.

55. In relation to the mobile phone, much has been said about the word used in the witness no.3’s statement and deposition in court as opposed to the word used in a mise-en-demeure which was served on the accused and Mr Barbier at the request and instance of witness no.3.

56. First of all, the court is not privy to the mise-en-demeure served upon the accused and Mr Barbier. The said witness explained in no unambiguous terms that when all the items fell on the ground, the accused picked up those articles from the floor whilst he was helping Mr Barbier back to his feet. It is evident from the cross-examination of witness no.3 that in his out- of-court statement as well witness no.3 mentioned the word ‘pick up’, as opposed to the word ‘snatch’ mentioned in the mise-en-demeure. As laid down in the case of Teeluck (supra), it is

immaterial whether the items were picked up or snatched. The moment the ‘légitime détenteur’ has been dispossessed of the items by the author, there is objectively an act of abstraction.

57. Witness no.3 was also cross-examined about the difference between the terms ‘picked from the floor’ and ‘from the treasurer’ and he clarified that what was meant by the words ‘from the treasurer’ was that, although the items were picked up from the floor, they still belonged to the treasurer and were thus taken from the treasurer.

58. I find no contradiction in the witness no.3’s testimony in that aspect.

59. It was also put to witness no.3 that when the police arrived on spot, he did not ask the police to fetch his phone and car key. Witness no.3 admitted that in his statement, he may not have mentioned that he asked the police about his phone. I note that for the car key, the witness never said in court that he asked the police about same in the first place. What he stated was that when the police came to calm things down, they were requested to leave the bureau and once outside, one police officer remitted to him his car key.

60. There is no contradiction regarding the car key but there is a contradiction as to the mobile phone. It is trite principle that contradictions are measured by the yardstick and that not all contradictions affect the credibility of a witness [vide Saman v State 2004 SCJ 3]. Here, the contradiction is with regards to what the witness said to a police officer some time after the alleged incident and moreover the said police officer was not called as a witness. This contradiction alone cannot outright render all of the witness’ testimony unworthy of belief. I find his version that he lost his mobile phone, money and booklets belonging to ‘mouvement patriotique’ to be consistent with the overall evidence on record and whether he asked the police to fetch his phone or not is to material enough to affect his overall credibility.

61. Witness no.3 deponed in a clear manner and his testimony is consistent with the deposition of witness no.2 so much so that the court has no qualms in accepting their testimony in the present matter. I also accept their testimony to the effect that when the accused picked up the articles from the floor, she refused to remit them back and stated “non, ca m’appartient maintenant” which goes on to show that the accused had the intent to ‘enlever’, ‘ravir’ the articles against the will of witness no.3.

62. I have mentioned earlier in this judgment that there was a variance between the sum mentioned by witness no.3 in court, that is, Rs22,000 and the sum particularised in the information, that is, Rs22,500.

63. At this stage it is relevant to point out that the amount of money is but a particulars of the articles not belonging to the accused and not an element of the offence. Reliance is sought from the Supreme Court case of DPP v Oozeer 2011 SCJ 223 whereby the appellate court held:

“…the learned magistrate rightly pointed out the variance between the value of the stolen onions as averred in the information and in evidence but did not address her mind to the basic fact that the value and the weight of the stolen articles were immaterial to the merits of the case as they were merely particulars and did not constitute an element of the offence of larceny. Having found the larceny proved she could have amended the information by virtue of section 73 of the District & Intermediate Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act to make it tally with the evidence since such amendment was not of a nature to cause any prejudice to the respondent. [Vide Banymandhub v The Queen 1998 SCJ 368]”

64. Similarly, as I have found established a case of fraudulent abstraction, the need to amend the particulars of the charge simply arises to make the information tally with the evidence on record. No prejudice has been caused to the accused party as the accused knew since enquiry stage that it was also reproached of her that she abstracted a sum of money together with the other items particularised in the information. I therefore proprio motu amend the information under both counts in the particulars to delete the word “Rs22,500” and substitute same by “Rs22,000”.

65. In light of the above, the court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is found guilty as charged under count 1. The alternate count 2 is dismissed.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 15 th April 2026