Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 LPW 17 – Police v Salehmohamed Ibrahim

Page 1 of 6

Police v Salehmohamed Ibrahim

2026 LPW 17

CN: 541/23

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

In the matter of –

Police

v/s

Salehmohamed Ibrahim

JUDGMENT

The charges

The Accused stands charged with having, on or about 4 November 2020, at St Jean Road, Quatre Bornes –

(a) under Count 1 of the Information, whilst driving a motor vehicle on a road, unlawfully failed to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type which was lawfully placed on the said road, with a further averment that a Fixed Penalty Notice served on the Accused in the sum of Rs 2000 has remained unpaid, in breach of sections 123AD(2) and (5), 123AG, 163(1)(b), 191 and 193 of the Road Traffic Act coupled with regulations 10 and 12 of, and Parts 3 and 4 of the Second Schedule to, the Traffic Signs Regulations 1990; and

(b) under Count 2 of the Information, whilst driving a motor vehicle on a road, unlawfully failed to carry, in a suitable holder which should be affixed to such part of the vehicle, a certificate of fitness as may be indicated by the examiner, with a further averment that a Fixed Penalty Notice served on the Accused in the sum of Rs 1000 has remained unpaid, in breach of sections 114(5), 122, 191 and 193 of the Road Traffic Act coupled with regulation 18(4) and (5) of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles, Road Service and Carrier’s Licences) Regulations 1964.

The Accused pleaded not guilty to Count 1 and guilty to Count 2. He was inops consilii.

Page 2 of 6

The case for the Prosecution

The prosecution case relied on the testimonies of two witnesses.

PS Roibari (Witness 1) explained that, on 4 November 2020, he was working in police uniform at St Jean Road, Quatre Bornes, at its junction with Orchidée Street, when he saw a private car bearing registration number AA 897 coming from the direction of St Jean and proceeding towards La Louise. Witness 1 explained that the said junction is operated by an automatic set of traffic lights that was in good working condition at the time.

Despite the traffic lights showing red to vehicles proceeding in the same direction as the private car, the latter kept motoring on. Witness 1 signalled the driver to stop which he did a little further ahead when he stopped his vehicle on the parking space of a supermarket. Witness 1 informed the driver of the offence committed and the latter solicited his leniency.

Upon checking the vehicle, Witness 1 also noticed that the certificate of fitness was not affixed and informed the driver of another contravention. The driver was not aware as to where he had kept the vignette. Witness 1 informed the driver he is being booked for the two contraventions and served him with a Fixed Penalty Notice which the driver accepted. He told Witness 1 he would be settling the fine at the District Court of Rose Hill.

In Court, Witness 1 identified the Accused as being the very driver that he had contravened on the material day.

Under cross-examination, Witness 1 explained that –

(a) the road was under repairs at the time in connection with the ongoing works for the metro project;

(b) he was not there because of the roadworks but because a VIP was meant to leave Capucines Street to proceed towards St Jean;

(c) he was standing at the corner waiting for the VIP and was not standing in the middle of the road;

(d) there was no fitness vignette at all, not even on the dashboard

Then came the turn of PS Mungar (Witness 2). He informed the Court that, in the present matter, he was tasked with verifying the status of a Fixed Penalty Notice bearing reference 396825. He has checked the COTS system as well as the Penalty Book of the District Court of Rose Hill and confirmed that the fine in respect of the said notice has remained unpaid.

Page 3 of 6

The case for the Defence

On being explained his rights, the Accused elected to depose under oath.

He explained that, on the material day, Witness 1 was standing at a fixed point opposite Central Supermarket. There was a traffic jam owing to ongoing road works in connection with the metro project and Witness 1 was signalling vehicles to move on so as to avoid a congestion. Witness 1 saw the car of the Accused and signalled him to stop which he did at Central Supermarket.

Witness 1 informed him he had committed an offence by not complying with the traffic lights. In turn, the Accused enquired as to the presence of Witness 1 in the middle of the road. As per his understanding, the instructions given by police officers take precedence over traffic lights and he only proceeded ahead in his car as Witness 1, who was on official duty and in police uniform, was signalling vehicles going in the same direction as him to move on and he followed suit.

His fitness vignette was on the dashboard and visible to all but Witness 1 did not check it properly as he appeared to be in a hurry.

Analysis

I have carefully weighed the evidence on both sides.

Being given the plea entered by the Accused under Count 2 of the Information, I shall focus my mind on the other charge levelled against him.

I shall first set out some of the relevant statutory provisions.

Section 123AD(2) of the Road Traffic Act (the “Act”) provides as follows –

Where a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type authorised under section 184 or 185 has been placed on or near a road, a person driving a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign shall commit an offence.

Section 184(3) of the Act further provides as follows –

Traffic signs shall be of the prescribed size, colour and type except where the Minister authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character.

Section 2 of the Act defines a “traffic sign” as follows –

“traffic sign” –

Page 4 of 6

(a) means an object or device on a road, whether fixed or portable, for conveying warnings, information, requirements, restrictions, prohibitions of any description prescribed or authorised under this Act to traffic or a specified description of traffic; and

(b) includes a line or mark on a road for conveying the warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions

The Traffic Signs Regulations 1990 (the “Regulations”) prescribes traffic signs. By virtue of the definition provided in regulation 2 therein, a “traffic sign” includes a “signal light” and “signal lights” is defined as “any of the signal lights specified in regulations 8 to 11” of the Regulations.

Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations provides as follows –

Subject to paragraph (6), red, amber and green signal lights of signs of the types set out in figures 1 to 17 specified in Part I of the Second Schedule may be used for the control of vehicular traffic, in conjunction with signs B1 to B3, C1, C11a or C11b and D1a, D1b, D1c or D1d and road marking H4.1 specified in Parts II, III, IV and VIII of the First Schedule, respectively.

Regulation 12 of the Regulations further provides as follows –

The significance of signal lights prescribed in regulations 8 and 9 shall be as specified in Part IV of the Second Schedule.

In Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Regulations , paragraph (1), which is entitled ‘NON-FLASHING VEHICULAR SIGNAL LIGHTS ’, provides as follows –

(1) Subject to subparagraph (2) when the red light is illuminated, vehicular traffic shall –

(a) stop at the stop line where a stop line is provided on the road;

(b) not proceed beyond the signal lights where no stop line is provided on the road.

(2) Subparagraph (1) shall not apply to an ambulance, fire engine or police vehicle with its audible warning system on except where it may cause danger to any other vehicle or to a pedestrian.

In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the traffic lights at the material time was showing red to traffic proceeding in the same direction as the vehicle of the Accused. What the Accused appears to be challenging is the fact that,

Page 5 of 6

despite that state of affairs, he had a duty to stop his vehicle at the traffic lights. This challenge is based on the fact that, irrespective of what the traffic lights may have been showing, the contrary instructions being imparted by Witness 1 at that intersection (as a police officer in uniform) took precedence and he abided by those instructions.

I must say that I have not been convinced that Witness 1 has been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Witness 1 confirmed, under cross-examination, that the road at the locus was under repairs at the time in connection with the ongoing works for the metro project. In addition to the roadworks, the said junction was being operated by a set of traffic lights. The cumulative effect of the works and the traffic lights lend credence to the claim of the Accused that the road, at the material time, was congested.

As per his own admission whilst he was being cross-examined, Witness 1 was at that spot on that day waiting for a VIP to come. Given the task with which he had been entrusted, it would have been in the interest of Witness 1 to ease the traffic congestion along St Jean Road so as to allow for a fluid vehicular flow whenever the VIP was to show up. Yet, Witness 1 would want me to believe that, despite the duty for which he had been detailed on that day, he was simply standing on a corner at the said intersection whilst waiting for the VIP to appear. I take this with a pinch of salt.

Besides, given the task being carried out by Witness 1 on that day, it is quite understandable why he would have been in a hurry to get back to it after swiftly contravening the Accused thus giving greater credibility to the latter’s version.

I have also factored in that, in all honesty, the Accused has pleaded guilty to one of the charges with which he is faced and has explained in Court the circumstances in which that offence took place.

The Accused has claimed that, on 4 November 2020, he was simply obeying the instructions being given by Witness 1. He is right in his understanding that those instructions superseded the set of traffic lights installed at that junction inasmuch as section 123AD(4) of the Act provides that “any direction given by a police officer shall override a traffic sign”.

As per the account of the Accused, it seems that he levelled some kind of criticism at Witness 1 for the way the latter was carrying out his duties on that day. In these circumstances, I cannot possibly discard the possibility that that is what may have aroused the ire of Witness 1. Altogether, I cannot also completely cast away the possibility that the incident may have been the composite outcome of an unfortunate set of misunderstandings.

Page 6 of 6

All in all, there has been raised in my mind a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the Accused in relation to the charge proffered against him under Count 1 of the Information. I am of the opinion that this is a fit and proper case for me to grant him the benefit of that doubt.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned above –

(a) given that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Count 1 of the Information, I dismiss that charge quoad the Accused; and

(b) given that the Accused has pleaded guilty under Count 2 of the Information, I find him guilty as charged under that Count.

H. H. A. Rohamally Senior District Magistrate

29 April 2026