Supreme Court of Mauritius, 28 février 2020, 2020 PL2 27 – Pce v Maudar

P a g e | 1

Pce v Maudar

2020 PL2 27

POLICE v MAUDAR Mohammad Ryaad

CN:6298/16 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2 nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V MAUDAR Mohammad Ryaad

JUDGMENT Accused stands with the offences of: 1. Distributing films not bearing classification of the board in breach of Reg 7(1) of GN 126/09 coupled with Sections 21 (c) 23 (2) (c) and 24 of the Films Act 41/200. 2. Carrying out classified trade without paying the prescribed fee in breach of Sect 122(1)(a) (3) and 158(1)(e\) of Local Government Act 36/11 The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and was duly represented by Counsel. Prosecution called witness no.1, PS Allybocus, who read and produced defence statement of the accused, marked as Doc A. The witness was duly cross-examined. Prosecution called witness no.2, PC Mohun, who read and produced defence statement of the accused, marked as Doc B.

P a g e | 2

The witness was duly cross-examined. Prosecution then called witness no.4, CPL Lacharmante, who related that on 09/01/16, whilst in company of CPL Meharally, he saw accused selling DVD films on a box on the streets. The witness approached the accused and asked for his permit, to which he replied: “DVD pe liquider. Prend aller fer Cuma dire fine ramasser lors chemin”. As the accused held no permit, he was warned of the offence. Upon carrying out a check, the officer noticed that the films bore no classification symbol allotted by the FCB. The accused together with the DVDs were taken to the office where same were counted in presence of the accused. The DVDs were then taken to the FCB for viewing and the accused did not attend the viewing session. The DVDs were produced and marked as Exh 1 collectively. The witness was duly cross-examined. Prosecution called witness no.5, Mr Ajay Hoolooman, who stated that he has been deputed to testify on behalf of the FCB in the present case. The witness explained the procedures regarding how films are classified. In view of the recurrent non-attendance of witness no.6, Prosecution closed its case. Case was then closed for the Defence. Counsel for Prosecution left matters in the hands of the Court. Counsel for Defence made a short submission. The Court has considered the evidence with attention. The Court took note of the following: • The representative of the Film Classification Board could not explain whether or not the films were in fact classified or not, given he was not the officer involved in the present case. • Regulation 7 (1) of GN 126/2009 reads as follows: “No person shall distribute a film unless – (a) the film has been duly classified by the Board; and (b) the cassette, disc, disc sleeve or cassette jacket containing the film bears the classification symbol allotted to the film by the Board.” • There is therefore, no indication as to whether the DVD films seized in the present matter were classified and allotted classification symbols or not and whether any such application was made by the accused company or not. In the absence of any evidence to this effect from the FCB, the Court is of the view that the offence has not been established.

P a g e | 3

• With regard to count II, in the absence of witness no.6, there is no evidence on record to establish the offence.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under count I and count II and accordingly dismisses count I and count II.

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut ( A. Senior District Magistrate) Delivered on 28 February 2020