Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 76 – Police v Sooklall

Police v Sooklall

2026 RDR 76

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

CN: 6257/2023

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

R Sooklall

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted for the offence of embezzlement in breach of section 333(1) of the Criminal Code.

Section 333(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows: “Any person who embezzles, squanders away or destroys or attempts to embezzle, squander away or destroy to the prejudice of the owner, possessor or holder, any goods, money, valuables, security, bill, acquittance or other document containing or creating an obligation or discharge, which has been delivered to such person merely in pursuance of any lease or hiring (‘louage’), deposit (‘dépôt’), agency (‘mandat’), pledge (‘nantissement’), loan for use (‘prêt à usage’), or for any work with or without a promise of remuneration with the condition that the same be returned or produced or be used or employed for a specific purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment and a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees.”

In the case at hand, the offence was allegedly committed at Mlle Jeanne, Goodlands, on 19.11.2022. Accused pleaded not guilty and he was assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in English.

The case for Prosecution rests essentially on the testimony of witness no. 2. It transpires from his testimony that he remitted the sum of Rs.40,000/- to Accused to make a kitchen cabinet, there was an agreement that the said sum be composed of Rs.32,000/- to buy the materials and Rs.8000/- for the labour, the said sum was paid in two instalments, namely, Rs.30,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- via Juice application, the work was not done, and only the amount of Rs.10,000/- was refunded to him via Juice Application. He conceded that Accused previously did other metal works for him, and he produced no documentary evidence to prove the agreement for the sum of Rs.40,000/- or to prove the remittance of Rs.30,000/- which he allegedly withdrew from the bank.

Accused denied under solemn affirmation the agreement for the sum of Rs.40,000/-. Instead, he stated that the agreement to make a kitchen cabinet was for the sum of Rs.23,000/-, and witness no. 2 transferred only Rs.10,000/- to him via Juice application which he subsequently refunded via Juice application to the latter as he could not do the job. He added that witness no. 2 told him the following words “guetter ki mo pou fer ek toi”.

In David v The State [2003 SCJ 242], the Supreme Court pointed out that “the element of embezzlement does not reside, as is often wrongly understood, in a breach of any of the contracts referred to therein. It is found in the laying of one’s hand on the property rights of the money or object which has been remitted to one not as owner but “à titre précaire”. So that a worker who squanders a sum of money remitted to him without accomplishing the work entrusted to him does not commit an embezzlement if that money was remitted to him as his pay or salary for the work to be done, because he received that money not “à titre précaire” but as owner with the right to dispose of it as he wished.”

Here, apart from the mere ipse dixit of witness no. 2, there is no documentary evidence of an agreement between the latter and Accused for the sum of Rs.40,000/-, composed of Rs.32,000/- to buy the materials and Rs.8000/- for the labour, or of a remittance of Rs.30,000/- in cash “a titre précaire”. On the contrary, Accused strenuously denied under solemn affirmation the agreement for the sum of Rs.40,000/- or having received the sum of Rs.30,000/.

In addition, the Court also had the opportunity to look at the demeanour of witness no. 2 and Accused. The testimony of the latter appears truthful that he refunded to witness no. 2 via Juice application the amount of Rs.10,000/- which he received from him also via Juice Application. Witness no. 2 himself admitted that Accused refunded the Rs.10,000/-.

In the circumstances, the Court finds it unsafe to pronounce a conviction against Accused especially that it appears from the evidence on record that there is bad blood between them. The testimony of Accused that witness no. 2 told him “guetter ki mo pou fer ek toi” remained unrebutted.

Hence, the Court grants Accused the benefit of the doubt, and the case against him is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 15.04.2026