Supreme Court of Mauritius, 2 juin 2020, 2020 ROD 27 – POLICE V LEOPOLD EXUPERY MARIE LOUIS

POLICE V LEOPOLD EXUPERY MARIE LOUIS

2020 ROD 27

Cause No: 1559/2019

THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

LOUIS MARIE EXUPERY LEOPOLD

JUDGMENT

1. Accused stands charged with the offence of drug dealing, namely distributing cannabis, in breach of sections 30 (1) (d) (i) and 47 (5) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended. 2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and at trial, he was not assisted by counsel. The trial. 3. For the prosecution, Jean Alain Momus was the main witness for the prosecution. 4. Momus testified that he purchased cannabis from an individual unknown to him. He went on to say that he told the police that he purchased the cannabis from Riken who is the person in the dock but he went on to say that he did not purchase the drugs from Accused. 5. As regards to Accused, from the dock, he stated that he pleaded guilty to previous cases but denied his involvement in the present case and could not explain the motivation of Momus.

The law.

6. As regards to the law, section 30(1) (d) (i) of the Dangerous Drugs Act provides:

Any person who offers, offers for sale, distributes, sells, brokers, delivers or transports on any terms whatsoever, dispatches, or dispatches in transit any dangerous drug shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable –

(i) where the offence is in respect of a dangerous drug specified in Part I of Schedule I, Schedule II or Schedule III, to a fine not exceeding one million rupees and to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 25 years;

Assessments of facts.

7. In the present case, no illegal drugs were found on Accused. As already stated above, the case for the prosecution rests mainly on the version which Momus gave when he was arrested by the police and where he stated that he obtained same from Accused.

8. However, during the trial, Momus exculpated Accused completely and even in cross examination, he stated that Accused never sold 3 rolls of cannabis to him and went on to say that he was forced to implicate Accused in the present case.

9. In view of the above evidence, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused was in possession of cannabis for distribution purposes.

Conclusion.

10. Therefore, for the reasons referred above, the case is dismissed against Accused.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered this 2 June 2020.